France '40 Gold Team Game

[2-81 Armor]

Now we have 5: Me (prefer Allies), larsonney (either/prefer German), Liebchen (either), Dodo98 (either/prefer German),
Brammer (prefer German).

Now there are 7: Me (prefer Allies), larsonney (either/prefer German), Liebchen (either), Dodo98 (either/prefer German),
Brammer (prefer German), Outlaw Josey Wales (either/prefer German), ComradeP (either).
Probably could do with one more person in order to make it 4 per side? I'm not sure about this though, since we'll have to see Mike Prucha's notes and recommendations for team play first.
We'll also have to get organized by sides (exact organization of each side should be left up to them of course), decide on which scenario to play (long/short Campaign, wired bridges or not). For myself I prefer the Long Campaign with wired bridges.
I think everything moving forward will depend on what Mike's notes and recommendations say. Also, the Holidays will of course take precedence, and may slow things down.
Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions? I'm very hesitant to appear to be dominating this thing, so if anyone would like to take the lead, or help with organizing, I'd really appreciate it.

[Der Landser]

I'd like to join in as well.  I can play either side.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Divide for sides and then pick somebody for CinC to see the turn first and last as the only player to send and receive email turns from the other side, who gets reinforcements, transfer units to other cdrs depending on situation, settle any disagreements etc etc. At least for emails to keep the turn from being duplicated and one of the players not having his move saved. It will look like he didn't play it. My turn was skipped like that twice in one game.

[ComradeP]

8 players would probably result in slower turn around time. Not really a problem for me, though.

One thing that might be more problematic with 4 players is dividing forces in a way that works with the "converging" nature of the campaign with most units eventually moving towards the Belgian coastline and the lengthening front on the X-axis during a push towards the coast by the Panzers as otherwise forces could end up regularly crossing boundaries after a few days.

Something like:

Allied player 1 controls the Dutch army, French 7th Army and Belgian forces roughly north of Brussels.
Allied player 2 controls the BEF, Belgian forces from Liege to Namur and the French 1st Army.
Allied player 3 controls French 9th Army and future reinforcements in the Namur-Charleville area and areas west of there and the handful of Belgian forces in the Ardennes.
Allied player 4 controls French forces east of Charleville and reinforcements moving towards the southern flank of the likely German breakthrough.

That could work, but it's still going to be somewhat complicated. The flow of the battle will also mean players 3 and 4 would have less to do initially, but more later on, whilst the forces of player 1 will decrease substantially over time.

Distributing forces between 4 German players might be trickier, particularly initially.

Two 2 vs 2 games instead of a big one might also be an option, though that might not suit the idea to start a team game.

[2-81 Armor]

8 players would probably result in slower turn around time. Not really a problem for me, though.

One thing that might be more problematic with 4 players is dividing forces in a way that works with the "converging" nature of the campaign with most units eventually moving towards the Belgian coastline and the lengthening front on the X-axis during a push towards the coast by the Panzers as otherwise forces could end up regularly crossing boundaries after a few days.

Something like:

Allied player 1 controls the Dutch army, French 7th Army and Belgian forces roughly north of Brussels.
Allied player 2 controls the BEF, Belgian forces from Liege to Namur and the French 1st Army.
Allied player 3 controls French 9th Army and future reinforcements in the Namur-Charleville area and areas west of there and the handful of Belgian forces in the Ardennes.
Allied player 4 controls French forces east of Charleville and reinforcements moving towards the southern flank of the likely German breakthrough.

That could work, but it's still going to be somewhat complicated. The flow of the battle will also mean players 3 and 4 would have less to do initially, but more later on, whilst the forces of player 1 will decrease substantially over time.

Distributing forces between 4 German players might be trickier, particularly initially.

Two 2 vs 2 games instead of a big one might also be an option, though that might not suit the idea to start a team game.

[2-81 Armor]

I'm thinking 3x3 is the way to go.

If it were 3x3 maybe it could be like this:

Germans-CinC (Player 1) controls reserves and reinforcements, allocates air support, sets general objectives and unit transfers. Player 2 controls Army Group A and whatever portion of Army Group C is in play, Player 3 controls Army Group B. Both report to the CinC.

Allies-CinC Player 1) controls reserves and reinforcements, allocates air support, sets general objectives and unit transfers. Player 2 controls Group of Armies 1. Player 3 controls Group of Armies 2. Both report to the CinC. BEF is considered (like history) part of GA 1 initially.

CinC's for both sides should be the first and last to see a turn before sending it to the other team, like OJW suggests.

Problem is what to do with the Dutch and Belgians? Maybe the Allied CinC should handle them, since it might be a bit too much for whoever is running GA 1?  Or, is another Player needed for the Allies (I'd hope not since it could complicate things)?

[ComradeP]

With 3 vs 3 we'd have to disappoint two people, though Brammer is starting another campaign game.

As to dividing forces: I agree that dividing them between 2 or 3 players works better than 4.

One option would be to have the CinC on each team handle the forces in the Netherlands, so the one player can focus on attacking/defending Belgium and one on attacking/defending France.

Giving the Allied player who controls Group of Armies 2 control over (most of) 9th Army might also be practical, as it allows the player who controls the rest of Group of Armies 1 and 7th Army to focus on Belgium.

First, let's wait on the scenario notes and let the other interested players chime in.

[2-81 Armor]

With 3 vs 3 we'd have to disappoint two people, though Brammer is starting another campaign game.

As to dividing forces: I agree that dividing them between 2 or 3 players works better than 4.

One option would be to have the CinC on each team handle the forces in the Netherlands, so the one player can focus on attacking/defending Belgium and one on attacking/defending France.

Giving the Allied player who controls Group of Armies 2 control over (most of) 9th Army might also be practical, as it allows the player who controls the rest of Group of Armies 1 and 7th Army to focus on Belgium.

First, let's wait on the scenario notes and let the other interested players chime in.

I think you're right. Better to wait until we can see the notes and read the designer's intent and recommendations.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

4vs4 would be easy enough with the CinC having forces to command. That is what the midnight transfers are for. IMO, transfers should be anytime. Players would also have to understand that at any time they would control more or less forces as the situation dictates. The CinC should have some forces to command because that keeps him from getting bored.

If you need two people to withdraw, I'll be one to make it easier to get going. You can keep me in mind as an alternate in case somebody has to drop out.

[2-81 Armor]

4vs4 would be easy enough with the CinC having forces to command.  That is what the midnight transfers are for.  IMO, transfers should be anytime.  Players would also have to understand that at any time they would control more or less forces as the situation dictates.  The CinC should have some forces to command because that keeps him from getting bored.  

If you need two people to withdraw, I'll be one to make it easier to get going.  You can keep me in mind as an alternate in case somebody has to drop out.

No need for anyone to withdraw. As far as I can tell we're still in the early planning and discussion stages. IMHO we can't really do much until the scenario and design notes are made available. Once we have those, we can get serious.

To jump in right now I think would be a huge mistake even for a 1 vs 1 game. We just don't know yet what the suggested options, and designer's intentions are. Earlier, Mike Prucha mentioned that his notes also include some recommendations for team play, and I think it's smarter to wait for them. If we were to jump in right now, we might be ruining things for everyone in an over enthusiastic rush to get going.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm willing to wait...it is Holiday Season after all, and that naturally slows everything down anyway.