For eventual multiplayer

[hellfish6]

I'm thinking about this meta-campaign idea. In another meta-campaign I was in years ago, using TacOps, one of the features of that game, besides allowing for multiple people per team, was a Game Master mode.

If/when you guys start fleshing out the multiplayer part, maybe it would be helpful to have something like that? With one person as the Game Master. It could be something as, theoretically, simple as enabling the Editor mode for one of the players. Something that would allow someone to teleport/add/remove/edit units and facilities as required on the fly and in-game.

[OnFire]

+1 good idea

[ultradave]

Blast from the past. I used to play TacOps A LOT. Great game.

[jarraya]

A bunch of us were involved in an MBX/CPX (something Battle Exercise)years ago which used Harpoon, TacOps and other games to simulate player decisions..... something like that again would be very cool!


The AARs are still online: http://www.tacopshq.com/MBX/Brunei/mbxaar.html

[Wasicun]

+1 good idea

[ultradave]

I remember that MBX. RikkiTikki was one of my regular TacOps opponents. Played a lot of email games and tested scenarios. At the time I was really busy at work and knew I wouldn't be able to effectively participate.

[jarraya]

It was great fun but it did take enormous amount of time from the players and I can't see how any of the game masters managed to keep a day job if they had one!

[djoos5]

Couldn't this be done now using Baloogan's multiplayer interface?

Let's say a game is designed with starting forces and then a spreadsheet is given to both sides that would list all reinforcements, posture changes, new facilities available, and/or the potential loss of allies. Each item on each sides' list would have the time increment that those assets would come available. You'd probably want to do these time increments based on the game intervals that are currently available in the Interface.

So, as an example:

At 12:15PM 8/27/1999 - USN/ALLIES gain 12 F-16's in Coningsby, England - flown over from the US mainland.

The US Player then selects the Coningsby Airbase and adds the F-16's.

This idea comes down to a matter of fair play and trust, and should work unless you don't trust the other player to follow the rules. In the latter case, why would you then play with this person?

Anyway, just a thought...

[RoryAndersonCDT]

I tried to do something along these lines when Command was first released. Turns out running a MBX, CBX is a full time job. I didn't have nearly enough free time to run it. I wrote http://baloogancampaign.com/command-plugins/geoscape/ Geoscape as a tool to help keep track of everything.


What I really want to do is run a huge full scale WWIII using joint command; breaking down all the theaters into small, reasonable chunks and then play those combats in Joint Command.

[jarraya]

Yes, as Baloogan says, it's a full time job for many people, not just one. The Brunei campaign then led to a greater MBX which never made it past Stage 1 because of the magnitude. I too, would love to run something like that.

In the meantime, I've thought of ways of running a "choose your own adventure" type Command scenario. For example, the player is given three choices (activate air wing, recall crew from R&R or whatever). Each choice would have a cost (game points) to the player. The player's orders would stipulate the options can be activated by, for example, flying a 737 from Washington to Andrews AFB. This can simulate the suits from Washington paying a visit to the base commander to tell him to activate the F-16s. This would then teleport the F-16s.

At the same time, this would activate a timed trigger. The enemy would then teleport their own units to theatre.

I don't have enough knowledge of the scenario editor yet to try this. But maybe someone does?

Jorge

[hellfish6]

I'm kinda hoping that Command will lighten the workload, though I know deep down that I'm mostly fooling myself.

It shouldn't be so all-consuming to do one of these! It's why I was aiming for something small - like a CVBG or a MEU type expeditionary fight. Not Omaha Beach or Taiwan.

That being said, I didn't know what Joint Command was until today. But WWIII might be a little massive.

[djoos5]

ORIGINAL: Baloogan

What I really want to do is run a huge full scale WWIII using joint command; breaking down all the theaters into small, reasonable chunks and then play those combats in Joint Command.

Hey Baloogan,

This sounds like a cool idea. I had done something similar back in the day with MBT - an Avalon Hill board game. We basically gridded the German front and using spreadsheets designated supply and command for each sector. Units could move from one sector to another, but it would take time.

That was a board game though, and CMANO would make this a lot easier. I would love to participate in this type of a campaign. Each player would be given a sector with available assets; reinforcements would be earned over time; objectives could be placed to ultimately destroy a sector's command and control (i.e. the player loses his primary base and the sector is lost to the opponent side.

We could use Google Maps, or whatever mapping program to define the sectors and then spreadsheets to designate the assets available in each sector. Battles could be limited to an area of certain square nautical miles, or you just battle out each section. What would be better would be an online database of the assets available by sector - that way it is visible by side (or to all), but can be monitored. Reinforcements could be listed, too, as to when they will be available.

I don't know - I am just brainstorming. I have a website, too, that I could setup the online data pages.