| Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/ |
|
| 3 vs 3 system. Club supported? https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17716 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Bill Coyle [ Tue Jul 08, 2025 4:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 3 vs 3 system. Club supported? |
Heads Up! I would like to know if you think this could work. It would need a NWC team approach. And probably someone more knowledgeable than me. Please understand I know nothing about how you guys do this stuff - forgive me if this is a no go for some reason you know and I do not. So I am thinking 40 -60 turns ( or more ). 3 vs 3. Each Team would also have 6 substitute players. Team 1 plays day1 and day 2. Team 2 has (day3) - (day4). So 4 days per PBEM turn. So that's about a game every 5 to 7 months if played to the end. We will find players in east to west time zone setting- Europe , East Coast USA, West Coast USA, Asia, Europe again or something like that. Passing the game east to west. Substitute players will be other (willing) club members who will support play. If any of the 3 main players fail to act/play on day 1 a Substitute will play on day 2 that moves the game at a set pace. So the big question is 1) how do subs know when to act? 2) How do subs access the turn? I think both could be managed on Discord but I want your input on this. This allows 3 vs 3 players to know how long a club run team game will take. So if the club wants to have more team games this could work. The key is Substitute players who will do a turn when one is missed. I am more than willing to help as a Substitute and would think others may as well. This could also be a Team Tournament - less than 40 turns using the same methodology, and again you know more than I. So what do you think? I was asked to bring this to you all and see what you all thought. |
|
| Author: | Steve Simenic [ Wed Jul 09, 2025 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3 vs 3 system. Club supported? |
Interesting idea! Reminds me of a community Dwarf Fortress game where each player would play one year and then pass the save file on to the next. It could work on Discord, but it might also work with a forum thread if the save can be attached to a message. When posting it could state "Steve's turn, please respond by 2025-07-11 23:59 UTC. If no response, Bill will take the turn before 2025-07-12 23:59 UTC". A Discord bot could help manage/exchange files and ping users when it's their turn. That might help with visibility through push notifications rather than needing to check the forum. Why not try with a short scenario to see if the planned procedures would work? 8 or so turns with 2 days maximum per turn. |
|
| Author: | Alexey Tartyshev [ Wed Jul 09, 2025 6:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 3 vs 3 system. Club supported? |
Hello Bill, The 3x3 concept can definitely be deployed — I’ve been involved in similar games in the past. The typical way to delegate responsibilities is to assign each player to command a Corps. One of the players — or an additional player without any tactical units — can act as the Commander-in-Chief (CinC), responsible for operational decisions and issuing orders to the Corps. The initial battle plan can be discussed and developed jointly by all Corps commanders, but the final say belongs to the CinC. Each Corps commander (player) would then take their turn and email the save file to the other Corps commanders, with the CinC and a designated substitute (second-in-command) copied. In practice, I don’t recall any cases where the second-in-command had to step in — usually, having one backup is more than enough in case someone drops out. Overall, it’s an interesting concept that reflects the real-life challenges of command: dispatch delays, miscommunications, and Corps commanders failing to follow orders. On the downside, one thing to keep in mind: the game cannot be played in a mode where the Move+Fire phase is separated from the Melee phase — Optional Melee Resolution must be turned off. This Optional Rule ON is considered the current gold standard these days, as it prevents “blitzkrieg” tactics. If players do want to follow the spirit of the Optional Melee rule, a strict house rule must be enforced: each Corps commander completes their move and fire phases first, and only then executes melee attacks. This will limit tactical coordination between the Corps — which is historically accurate — but some players may find it difficult to follow and may occasionally mix up melee with movement. It’s best to agree in advance on how to handle such cases: either the turn is replayed, or the opposing side is allowed to respond with the same type of error. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|