Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Opponents Wanted



Message


jjdenver -> Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/5/2009 5:08:44 PM)

Title says it all. I'm interested in a multiplayer WWIII or 2-player Barbarossa.




RufusTFirefly -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/6/2009 9:25:34 PM)

I would like to join WWIII. But dont have time for another Barbarossa1vs1.




jjdenver -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/13/2009 7:21:09 PM)

Still LF opponent(s) for pretty much any multiplayer or 2 player scenario.




Barthheart -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/13/2009 7:38:41 PM)

We need a Japan player for Waw Ver k.... wanna join?




hatemf90 -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/15/2009 3:55:17 PM)

Me and jjdenver are looking for a couple of players for a barbarossa game, any takers?




RufusTFirefly -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/18/2009 10:47:25 AM)

Would prefer WWIII as I am already doing two games of Op Barbarossa, but in case you have closed search for WWIII-players I would like to join Barbarossa.




Jxai -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/18/2009 7:41:50 PM)

I'll play WWIII, I might be fodder though since I've only played against the AI.




jjdenver -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/18/2009 10:15:47 PM)

Pls PM me your email and post which side you'd prefer in WWIII and if we have enough we can play.

I'd prefer in order:
US
USSR
EU
PDRC




Jxai -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/19/2009 3:26:29 AM)

My prefs:
PDRC
NATO
USSR
US




hatemf90 -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/19/2009 1:36:29 PM)

PDRC
USSR
NATO
USA

I hope Rufus is not looking for revenge :)




RufusTFirefly -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/19/2009 6:02:10 PM)

I will take any side that is opposite to hatemf90 [:'(]

Ok, serious now:
US or NATO would be fine.

So, jj, we try to send these bloody communists to hell? [:D]

Could start tomorrow (Wednesday) evening (GMT+1)




jjdenver -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/19/2009 8:28:23 PM)

Based on the opinions given I think these sides should work out fine:

PDRC: hatemf90
USSR: jjdenver
NATO: Jxai
US: RufusTFirefly

This gives everyone one of their top 2 choices - so works out great. :)

NATO does their turn first so Jxai can you start the game up? I'll email to everyone so we have each other's email addresses.




Jxai -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/19/2009 8:53:40 PM)

Sounds good, I'll start it as soon as I get the email.

JH




Jxai -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/19/2009 11:17:35 PM)

First turn sent to jjdenver, NATO is shocked by the sudden build up of Communist troops and hastily rushes troops to the European front. Deep recon flights suggest a buildup of armored assets around Berlin. Brussels is concerned and orders massive changes in production. Artillery obstinently refuses to fire... (is that a bug?)




hatemf90 -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/19/2009 11:39:16 PM)

No it just has a range of 1, so has to be right next to the target.




Jxai -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/20/2009 12:11:44 AM)

Oh boy...I hope I didn't tip my hand too much. That is...the hand that I haven't played this scenario before. Heh.




RufusTFirefly -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/20/2009 7:23:08 PM)

In this scenario you can build artillery (guns, rockets) with range = 1. And you can build long-range artillery (guns) with range = 2.




hatemf90 -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (5/21/2009 1:44:18 AM)

well, Rufus might have his revenge after all. Dont be surprised if you hear news of japan invading china [:'(]

Turn sent to US




RufusTFirefly -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (6/24/2009 7:05:26 PM)

This game is dead or paused or ...?
In case it is dead I would like to start another one.




jjdenver -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (7/19/2009 8:37:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RufusTFirefly
This game is dead or paused or ...?
In case it is dead I would like to start another one.


I'm not sure what happened. Someone stopped sending the turn. I was making an AAR. The last screenshots I have are from Turn 5 so that must have been the last turn that I was sent.
Here is a pic of Turkey, Europe, and Scandinavia



[image]local://upfiles/26942/856D25948C23488EB3CFD71A99FBC593.jpg[/image]




jjdenver -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (7/19/2009 8:46:13 PM)

Norway was done and Soviets were moving on to Norway.


[image]local://upfiles/26942/414D8828EE4344408E86216D6DBBBA7B.jpg[/image]




jjdenver -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (7/19/2009 8:46:55 PM)

Turkey is conquered but Syria is threatened by Israel. Egypt hasn't been attacked yet. On Soviet front is advancing on Greece.


[image]local://upfiles/26942/0F7BCDE7C0C24B19B9FC2C180B129CAA.jpg[/image]




Grymme -> RE: Anyone for WWIII (multiplayer) or Barbarossa (2-player)? (7/19/2009 8:55:24 PM)

Wow. Thats really impressive for round 5. Havent seen the soviets do that before in such short time. How did you take Turkey in 5 rounds?




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.539063E-02