3+ multi-PBEM capability

[Rabbit]

At the top of my Squad Battle wish list in terms of a future enhancement would be the capability for 3+ multi-PBEM. In other words, a player controlling the British units in a scenario would make their move, save it, email it to their ally who is controlling the American units who make their move, save it, email it to their opponents controlling the German forces who make their move, who in turn email it to their Italian comrades who make their move. That would comprise one turn. The game can already handle this to a limited degree, but it would be best if each player was restricted from being able to manage allied units that aren't under their control (e.g., British player couldn't move American forces and vice versa).

I think it would be a hoot to have a bunch of players involved and it would add a tremendous dimension to the game. For instance, aside from the sheer fun of having many players involved, it would make it possible to tackle much larger scale scenarios without making the moves overwhelming for any single player. I also think this would attract new players to Squad Battles who are interested in a group PBEM type game (e.g., folks who are interested in the game Diplomacy).

(PS: By the way, I just ordered my copy of DBP - after having just ordered PW the previous week. I now have 130 new scenarios to contend with ... LOL.)

[TheBigRedOne]

It's a fine idea, but one that I think might have a limited amount of actual useage versus the potential time/energy/cost of implementing this type of software change into the engine.

The scenario in question would have to be fairly large in scope in order for it to be interesting, and if would have to have a large contingent of multiple forces on both sides. It would be interesting to search out to see if any scenarios actually would be available for this type of PBEMing.

Like I said, an interesting idea, but one that I would imagine would be not near the top of the list of engine modifications in the near future.

[Riley D. Smith]

One other issue that crops up in my mind is game scale. I have played many games using the Campaign Series where we had multiple commanders (one monster we had 3 divisional commanders and one overall Army commander per side for a total of 6 players!). It was a great way to play a game of that scale (ie...divisional units and down). The sheer size of the map was daunting but it worked. The other problem is that playing a game that large (and it was like 30 or turns in length) was S-L-O-W.

In fact, we tragically had one of the actual players pass away (this was a Blitz player on the CS ladder) while involved in the game at which point we formally declared a truce and left the game where we stood at the time of his death in his honor. But I digress.

I don't believe that the Squad Battles framework/engine really is designed to cover engagements that large, which, IMO, is what makes this Squad Battles. I have really enjoyed up to Battalion sized engagements in this series but think that much larger than that and you begin to dilute what makes the smaller scale so inviting in the first place.

That said, it doesn't seem that there are that many "mixed forces" (ie..nationalities, different service branch, etc) that you would be dealing with at the Battalion level and lower.

Anyway, just my unsolicited 2 cents. Game on.

[fastphil]

One other issue that crops up in my mind is game scale. I have played many games using the Campaign Series where we had multiple commanders (one monster we had 3 divisional commanders and one overall Army commander per side for a total of 6 players!). It was a great way to play a game of that scale (ie...divisional units and down). The sheer size of the map was daunting but it worked. The other problem is that playing a game that large (and it was like 30 or turns in length) was S-L-O-W.

In fact, we tragically had one of the actual players pass away (this was a Blitz player on the CS ladder) while involved in the game at which point we formally declared a truce and left the game where we stood at the time of his death in his honor. But I digress.

I don't believe that the Squad Battles framework/engine really is designed to cover engagements that large, which, IMO, is what makes this Squad Battles. I have really enjoyed up to Battalion sized engagements in this series but think that much larger than that and you begin to dilute what makes the smaller scale so inviting in the first place.

That said, it doesn't seem that there are that many "mixed forces" (ie..nationalities, different service branch, etc) that you would be dealing with at the Battalion level and lower.

Anyway, just my unsolicited 2 cents. Game on.

If you really really want to do this play it on line. We've played foursomes of AOTR before but I'd recommend keeping it small to start. It has a lot different feel. you just divide up the available OOB amongst the team. An armor leader and two infantry leaders work as both infantry guys fight over tank support.

[Riley D. Smith]

That would be interesting. I'd be willing to give that a go. BTW...I did not know you were a retired CPO as well FastPhil. Ditto here...I went in 2005. Just too much change started happening that I could not support so it was time for me to retire.

[MasnarT]

waw.. a multiplayer Squad battles game just like in Panzer, Modern Campaigns??

i can say team games are the best way to play a campaign, but yet as Alan said the scenario must be little large and the distribution of troops for both sides (axis and allies) must be suitable for team play...

in squad battles we can save the file after a few moves and open it later right? so we can try team games but i don't know maybe the scenario should be on battalion level? 2 battalion for each side with 2 companies each ?

is there such scenario ? or anything close to that? i'm gonna search the games that i have

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I only have Tour of Duty at the moment, but if you can save a turn and come back to it later to finish it, you should be able to play teams. As for the small fights is why it is called Squad Battles, I beg to differ. It's the scale of the fight that makes it Squad Battles, not the size. If you can make the scenarios yourself, you could make the sides regiments or bdes givng a 3 man team one bn each plus supporting elements. Multinational games have always peaked my interest which is probably one of the biggest reasons I like team games so much, especially with our international community we have here. I'm going to try and get into some of these SQ games when more money becomes available or by trading a few games if I can find any takers that want to unload any Squad Battle games. I think teams can be done, you just have to have the people who want to do it.