|
If you find a partner, please consider making a LP out of it. Sounds like it'd be very interesting to follow.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 11:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
Lord Windy posted:I have a strange request, does anyone want to play a game of WitP:AE where someone plays the military side of the Japanese (ie, plan attacks against other nations, does bombing of places and whatnot) and I play the industrial side (ie, the shipping of resources back to Japan, building planes, training pilots in China, sending subs out)? I really like doing all the boring stuff of the Economy but not so much the rest of the game. I thought about the feasibility of doing a large WitP game similar to the DC:WtP goon games where multiple goons play on a single side controlling separate armies/theaters. In WitP you could probably fairly easily do it, with each player restricting themselves to controlling one command (Goon 1 controls ABDA, Goon 2 controls South Pacific, etc.). You'd then have a player who could run logistics for everyone (moving supplies/fuel to important commander-designated depots for the individual commands), and another to serve as Supreme Allied Commander Pacific who would be responsible for delegating troops to the general commands, overall strategy, and unlocking units with political points. Of course the practicality of running such a game would be like herding cats, but if you had a core group of people dedicated to the idea, it would be pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 11:37
|
|
|
It took us the better part of a year to get through the last DC:WTP PBEM, didn't it? I'd love to give that split-WITP idea a shot, but that may well take longer than the actual war to completely play through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:It took us the better part of a year to get through the last DC:WTP PBEM, didn't it? I'd love to give that split-WITP idea a shot, but that may well take longer than the actual war to completely play through. It was about 9 months I think, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
I'd be happy to do a WITP super thing if I can still do the pushing stuff around. Logistics is no issue to me, I really want to see how much I can break the Japanese economy. I think I got to the point at one stage where I was building more planes than the Americans where sending in to fight me with and they were getting cashed in supplies. I think you can have too many planes in reserve so it was wasted effort. I couldn't keep up with the land war though and gave up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
quote:1114 hrs - 3/A/2nd Bn/66th Amd Rgt is receiving artillery fire in hex 2109
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind playing the opposing side or the 'military' side of the Japanese in a PBEM. I dunno how well it would work and would definitely take a long time with the expected delay from 3+ players. If it's worth doing it's definitely worth recording as a LP but like some have said that's a LONG time comittment. What sort of split of responsibilities would you want? I know the IJN economy pretty well and as you say its possible to manipulate plane construction so you have numerical superiority over the Allies in key fields but at the same time what most people don't realise (in scenario 1 at least) is that the IJN is limited by Pilots, Supplies and most importantly FUEL not by heavy industry or airframes. If you overbuild aircraft production you literally run out of supplies in mid '42 from all the factory expansion combined with the increase in army units, aircraft wings and the tempo of combat. I nearly did it to myself in my last game, partly because I expanded my air groups like mad to hold the greater than historical amount of territory I occupied. That game actually paused in September 1942 because my opponent disappeared so I still have the game files if people felt like picking it up at the start of the real Allied push back instead of the usual start of the war. Astonishingly the RN, USN and IJN are almost completely intact due to my previous opponents extremely cautious playstyle. [e] It looks like this 
Saros fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:Bull. loving. poo poo. Incoming patch is apparently turning down the effect of lighter artillery on armour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
Saros posted:I wouldn't mind playing the opposing side or the 'military' side of the Japanese in a PBEM. I dunno how well it would work and would definitely take a long time with the expected delay from 3+ players. If it's worth doing it's definitely worth recording as a LP but like some have said that's a LONG time comittment. I was thinking of handling the industry, production, subs (both defence and offence), carting resources back and training pilot(either in china or India). Supplies for invasions would be handled by you and I would take over maintenance. I'd also give you leave to handle the military build queue if you wished. My usual plan is normally to cut down the number of plane types and rush towards 1943 planes and the end game 1945-46 planes. But with someone else as the Allies I would be far more careful and defer to what planes you wanted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
Yeah i'd be down for that. Now I suppose we need a
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
You should get separate players to control the IJN and IJA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
dublish posted:You should get separate players to control the IJN and IJA. ... who never communicate, never coordinate and include snooty and snide remarks every time they trade turn files.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
COIN, Pacific War edition. IJN vs IJA vs Allies vs BuOrd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Fangz posted:COIN, Pacific War edition. Shut up your torpedoes are fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
dublish posted:You should get separate players to control the IJN and IJA. IJN: "Why are those troops still in strategic mode, we agreed to use them for assaulting Guadacanal." IJA: "Lost the memo." IJN: "I CAN SEE IT ON YOUR DESK RIGHT THERE." IJA: *Shuffles papers* "I don't know what you are talking about." BUORD: "OMG do you know how expensive torpedoes are we're not made of money!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
There was one other thing, we don't have to do it but could we consider the scenario 8-8-8? I am on my phone and can't get to the matrix forum but it is a scenario where the Washington treaty never happened and both sides start off with roughly twice the number of battleships. It's a silly little mod but I love the ridiculous nature of extra BBS. I don't know if it is balanced properly however. I know that it's harder to sink the battleships in pearl harbour. But otherwise the game is the exact same for the Japanese and I don't think the Allies get any extra ships in their queue
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Saros posted:IJN: "Why are those troops still in strategic mode, we agreed to use them for assaulting Guadacanal." Navy: Our Sub commanders report the torpedoes are hot garbage. BUORD: I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm pretty certain the torpedo is fine. Navy: But... BUORD: Zippit. *makes zipping motion across mouth* Navy: But... BUORD: *covers ears* La la la la la can't hear you la la la la
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Incoming patch is apparently turning down the effect of lighter artillery on armour. Which is very much needed. If you deck out, say, a forward Regiment with the artillery that could be expected to be cascaded down to them from Div and even Army levels, the game tends to go *shwack every hilltop and bush, drive through, cap points* Not entirely unrealistic, but the vulnerability of tanks and even inf in covered positions feels very off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:There was one other thing, we don't have to do it but could we consider the scenario 8-8-8? I am on my phone and can't get to the matrix forum but it is a scenario where the Washington treaty never happened and both sides start off with roughly twice the number of battleships. It's a silly little mod but I love the ridiculous nature of extra BBS. I dunno the 8-8-8 scenario but I always like the 'Reluctant Admiral' one. It has an improved, somewhat raionalised IJN but still the same economic weaknesses and the USA is also somewhat better prepared for the war. Alternatively we could pick a wacky scenario with this bad boy;  How many guns is that! I don't know! [e] Holy poo poo they made a way to have the Allied player be able to 'buy' extra aircraft with political points. 
Saros fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
I broke FC:RS. Or maybe the troops are just fed up with my poo poo. Units will simply not attack each other. They will drive around and capture victory points, but they refuse to engage enemies.   Soviet and US tank companies sharing smokes in the ruins of a town. "Jesus christ, what a poo poo war." "Da."  Fed up US tankers camping up and watching the T-80BV's burn donuts on a hill.  The game agrees with my assessment, renaming the operation with the name i used for the save file.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Heh. It's a dreadful campaign btw. What the hell is the 10th Guards Tank Division doing near Buchholz? Where is the Dutch Army? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Does anyone know of any games with the same kind of multiplayer as the Combat Mission series? I'm talking about the quick-battle style, where each side selects/buys their units and such.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
SPMBT, SPWAW.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:Soviet and US tank companies sharing smokes in the ruins of a town. Honestly, that's probably the best possible ending for a Hot War.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:Does anyone know of any games with the same kind of multiplayer as the Combat Mission series? I'm talking about the quick-battle style, where each side selects/buys their units and such. In addition to Steel Panthers and Close Combat serieses, I don't have Pike and Shot but I think it fits the bill. Then there's a number of real time strategies that have been designed all wrong (ie. playability above realism), such as Wargame or Total War serieses maybe (I mean the tactical battles can get pretty interesting if you have multiple players on both sides)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Unfortunately the only games that come close to grognard level that fit that bill in my mind are the ones Nenonen mentioned. Of the two, the Wargame series are much more grognardy than the Total War series is, but still don't offer quite the same levels of sperg that we're all used to. The Wargame games are all super good though. Nenonen posted:serieses 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Wargame multiplayer is just another gimmicky minmaxed to the hilt RTS fest. Not that I particularly minded though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Koesj posted:Wargame multiplayer is just another gimmicky minmaxed to the hilt RTS fest. Not that I particularly minded though. It was the best RTS I'd played in years and I'll never quite forgive Eugen for releasing Red Dragon and killing my regular strategy multiplayer kick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It was the best RTS I'd played in years and I'll never quite forgive Eugen for releasing Red Dragon and killing my regular strategy multiplayer kick. After all the time I spent playing EE and ALB multiplayer I just couldn't get into Red Dragon, glad I'm not the only goon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
apseudonym posted:After all the time I spent playing EE and ALB multiplayer I just couldn't get into Red Dragon, glad I'm not the only goon. I occasionally post in the Red Dragon thread about how bitter I am that they broke their own game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
I'll also throw my hat into the ring for a Goon WiTP group PBEM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Someone face me at Ultimate General! Gettysburg. Accepting all comers tonight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I occasionally post in the Red Dragon thread about how bitter I am that they broke their own game. This, but about when they abandoned RUSE for the Wargame series, still mad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:Does anyone know of any games with the same kind of multiplayer as the Combat Mission series? I'm talking about the quick-battle style, where each side selects/buys their units and such. Also battle academy 2 lets you though the options are a tad limited and it can get silly. The amount of tigers you will see will blow your mind. Still a good light war/strategy game. Panzer corps also has multiplayer scenarios where you pick stuff. I might be interested in the witp ae game but I've not played it much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It was the best RTS I'd played in years and I'll never quite forgive Eugen for releasing Red Dragon and killing my regular strategy multiplayer kick. What was wrong with Red Dragon?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Me and dtkozl are playing a War Plan Orange PBEM and i sure miss all the improvements to the engine that WITP:AE added. But i am still loving it, we haven't gotten to do any big ships fight yet, and all the planes are kinda useless. If anyone else has the game and wants to do a PBEM game too, you should hit me up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
dtkozl posted:Also battle academy 2 lets you though the options are a tad limited and it can get silly. The amount of tigers you will see will blow your mind. Still a good light war/strategy game. Panzer corps also has multiplayer scenarios where you pick stuff. AT guns are super hosed and die to artillery or air strikes in one hit almost every time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Alikchi posted:I'll also throw my hat into the ring for a Goon WiTP group PBEM. And we have our third. I've never played Reluctant Admiral but I'd be happy to give it a go. EDIT: This is the 8-8-8 mod if you meant you never heard of it. I just like the ridiculous numbers of BBs at the start. Lord Windy fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Hah wow that certainly is pretty out there. The allies have 20+ Battleships plus the three Dutch battlecruisers with another 29!! to arrive and the IJN has 22 BB/BC including Yamato & Musashi with another 2 Yamato's to come. I can only see it being viable if you have a chance to bushwack the Allies like in real life with PoW/Repulse and Pearl harbor otherwise there's almost no way an invasion of the DEI can be pulled off on anything resembling a reasonable timeframe. I'll have a poke around the scenario and see what it's like. [e]I looked, its going to be extremey difficult for the IJN because of how the modder has changed the starting setup. The majority of the IJN starts in Hiroshima and the British (2 BB's) and Dutch (3 CB's with 18 inch guns, what the gently caress) start forward deployed at Singapore and Soerabaja. The RN and Dutch actually outnumber the IJN in theater for over a week before the IJN arrives in force. This basically means a Mersing Gambit and a quick takeover of the first wave of bases is virtually impossible. Maybe if the ALlied player agreed not to use the Dutch CB's for a week or so it would be possible to get that first foothold and we could have some awesome running battles throughout the DEI but by default its a huge disadvantage to the IJN. Saros fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
In that case we can go with vanilla or reluctant admiral. I have the game installed 3 times now. One for Rhs, one for the reluctant admiral and the other as vanilla.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 02:17
|
|