Opponents wanted for Jihad '04 Campaign Game

[Many Mariuses]

Hello all,

Outlaw Josey Wales and I are looking for two opponents interested in playing the Arab coalition in the Jihad '04 scenario by Volcano Man.

We propose the usual optional rules for the Alt scenarios. We are looking to get in 3-5 turns per week.

Feel free to contact me with any questions.

[burroughs]

That's one of the last scenarios I'd like to try in ME '67, but with over forty or fifty divisional size commands on the Arab side I have found that pretty unmanageable for a single player. Didn't think anybody would be interested in a team game so I'd say yes, you could count me in for all practical purposes, but I won't be able to pull that many turns per week so it's up to you whether you manage to find somebody else or accept a lower turn rate. Moreover, I don't think any of the versions I happen to have is actually the _Alt version so why the alt rules? Superpowers intervention included or opting out? Finally, people used to say that the level of IAF interdiction is insane and they used to change the values there. Any thoughts on that?

[Many Mariuses]

We would be happy to have you on board

I'm not sure I realized that the campaign was that big, so we can certainly revise the speed of play. The important thing is that the players are committed.

I would prefer the version without superpower intervention.

Regarding optional rules: We are amenable to any optional rules except "no locking zones of control," which I don't believe is even available in ME 67. My thought with offering the _alt rules because (a) they seem to be widely used in the community, and (b) since Volcano Man designed the scenario, it seemed appropriate. But, if you have a suggestion, I don't see why we can't accommodate it.

Regarding the IDF's high interdiction rate. I would certainly be open to modifying this, especially if it resulted in a better game. I have no idea how to do any of this, however, and would need some help.

Feel free to contact me here or at my email address if you want to discuss matters further.

OJW, feel free to chime in if you have thoughts of your own

[burroughs]

No foreign intervention is fine with me. I am attaching the file with the set of optional rules I'd propose for a variety of reasons I can always explain in further details if necessary - so far I'd say it is suffice to say that in my humble opinion they promote realism, but not necessarily a balanced gameplay so I am open to any constructive discussion. Actually I still need to reconsider the _alt options, perhaps it is an optimal set indeed, may need to ask the designer himself as a matter of fact. Editing .pdt file should be quite easy, but let's first see if the fourth potential participant appears at all.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Looks good to me. I'd like to go foreign intervention, but not a deal buster, just something I'd like to do some day, so I'm ok without it if that is what y'all want.

I think all campaigns should be played with explicit supply, but it seems most don't play that way, so I'm ok either way there as well. No locking zoc and I'm fine.

The main thing in all games is being able to play!

[Many Mariuses]

I too am fine with the proposed alternate rules.

Also, if the majority wish to play with foreign intervention I will go along with the group.

As the Outlaw points out, the most important thing is playing the game!

[Steelwhip]

damn..and I just deleted ME '67 off my computer a few days ago. course I also think that scenario would be to big for me to deal with effectively. as much as I want to get in a team game...that ones to big for me I think especially with only a couple players per side.

best of luck with it!

[burroughs]

I checked the VM suggested optional rules at his side and there are actually only two differences - for some reason he promotes "artillery setup" whereas in modern warfare with abundance of proper tools - computers and commo equipment - the model of arty setup including laying wires and cables and setting up a communication net anew each time is obviously obsolete and correct for PzCs. The other thing is no indirect strikes by the map - if we have the limited air recon on there's no way no use that option in a gamey manner and it's unthinkable not to be able to target a crossing within range even if there are no LOS as there is air recon modelled etc.

Regarding supply - explicit yes, I always use it as a rule of thumb even if that's not a campaign - again it's just more realistic to me, but here it's not available just like there's no programmed weather for any ME '67 scenario I happen to know of - I just checked that since I always do, just in case.

I am also in for foreign intervention.

Steelwhip, you can still change your mind. I am slowly leaning to a conclusion that ME '67 is probably the best title among MCs and myself I definitely like it the most even though I used to be cold about this theatre with no regard to period. Now I only wish there were some scenarios for '48 war and not just a few custom ones with nasty custom graphics.

I'll see about those interdiction levels then.

[Deturk]

I accept your Challenge Gentlemen.

[Volcano Man]

Actually, that campaign can work with any optional rules IIRC. It was before the whole _Alt scenario business - it is an oldie, back when "2004" was the present. ;)