A poll for guaging what types of multi-player MBX wargames folks prefer or are interested in.

I would prefer a game where turns are every couple of days and that is complete within a year. Players need to understand upfront that if order deadlines are missed, the umpire will step in via standing orders and act in the player's stead. This is to keep the game moving.

 

The umpire has the devine right to decide any issue within the game.

 

The equipment, assets available, etc are all determined up front. Once the game starts, no newly discovered gear or capability can be brought into the game. A source document is a good idea, H4 Data Annex for example, but no stitrep updates unless addressed at the start.

 

Perhaps a more abstract rule set could be used to adjudicate the game, yet still give plausible results, remember that it a game, and therefore fun. Perhaps Shipwreck instead of Harpoon to relieve the umpire from overload in calculating results to the nth degree.

 

IMO the main rule should be "keep moving!"

....Perhaps Shipwreck...

 

IMO the main rule should be "keep moving!"

 

Or "Red Banner"

Not a whole lot of replies, of course, but two things surprise me:

 

1. Lack of interest in an MBX that would look at a WWII or earlier battle.

 

So much material available here! Why not?

 

2. Preference for email based MBX rather than forum based.

 

I have to say that, imho, the organizational, record keeping, and quick reference advantages of the forum are invaluable. Having taken part (and still taking part) in wargames that span several years (the War in 2012 game, for example, has moved two hours of game time in the past year and a half), I can advise that the number of emails is massive and it can be a real pita to try and dig up relevant information and communications.

...2. Preference for email based MBX rather than forum based....

 

I wavered on that and can definitely see the benefits inherent in a "forum-based" game.

 

...the War in 2012 game, for example, has moved two hours of game time in the past year and a half...

 

That was the problem for me and why I dropped some year and a half to two years ago, although I still do lurk and read Blufor.

I've only just voted.

 

I think a forum based game has big benefits over email, massive benefits.

 

Theres so much cold war/hypothetical current day stuff to be gamed. I am interested in WWII scenarios, but its a distant second.

 

I didnt realise you could vote more than once per topic.

 

I have the embarrasment of joining a game, loosing interest over time, and then forgetting completely to go back and check the forum after returning from holidays and only now realising its been a month or more since i checked in (sorry :-( ).

Not a whole lot of replies, of course, but two things surprise me:

 

1. Lack of interest in an MBX that would look at a WWII or earlier battle.

 

So much material available here! Why not?

 

2. Preference for email based MBX rather than forum based.

 

I have to say that, imho, the organizational, record keeping, and quick reference advantages of the forum are invaluable. Having taken part (and still taking part) in wargames that span several years (the War in 2012 game, for example, has moved two hours of game time in the past year and a half), I can advise that the number of emails is massive and it can be a real pita to try and dig up relevant information and communications.

I didn't actually cast a vote as I've never had anything to do with these games and wasn't sure about most aspects.

However I'm interested to see more and probably participate in a short(ish) simple game.

I'd have no preference in most of the questions except;

time limit [i'd like less than six months];

turn frequency [three to six days] and

basis [forum based sounds better judging from comments]

Being a 'virgin' my biggest preference (not asked) would be for simple rules.

Don Thomas

[ed.] PS I assume (generally speaking at Harpgamer) having 'looked' at the votes in a poll you then can't vote?

[ed.] PS I assume (generally speaking at Harpgamer) having 'looked' at the votes in a poll you then can't vote?

 

True. I'm shocked at how monolithic the answers are! In terms of someone wanting to run a game it is clear what harpgamers want.

So,

 

We will see in the very near future, a...

 

Hypothetical fact based, hypothetical cold war to modern day to near future, forum based game, to be completed between 6 months to a year, utilizing a strict just a few days between turns, and an abstract yet fun rules set that gives us a plausible result?

 

So,

 

We will see in the very near future, a...

 

Hypothetical fact based, hypothetical cold war to modern day to near future, forum based game, to be completed between 6 months to a year, utilizing a strict just a few days between turns, and an abstract yet fun rules set that gives us a plausible result?

 

Do you by any chance write speeches for politicians???

I was starting to think it made sense

I was starting to think it made sense

 

It was just linking the highest rated subjects in the poll.

Will we see in the very near future, a...

 

Hypothetical fact based, hypothetical cold war to modern day to near future, forum based game, to be completed between 6 months to a year, utilizing a strict just a few days between turns, and an abstract yet fun rules set that gives us a plausible result?

 

Well?

posted, I have stalled a MBX for hypothetical future, for 1-2 hours turns and 2 weeks real-time turn. I make some early cool war Spanish scenery based on descolonization era and hypothetical Morocco Spanish sceneries. I play forum and e-mail based turns campaign and I war dual lurker MBX Global Thunder.

Will we see in the very near future, a... Hypothetical fact based, hypothetical cold war to modern day to near future, forum based game, to be completed between 6 months to a year, utilizing a strict just a few days between turns, and an abstract yet fun rules set that gives us a plausible result?

 

Well?

 

Heh, I'd like to say Yes.

 

A hypothetical, fact based (i.e. working from a known data set), forum based game, with weekly (or less) turns, aimed at completion within 6 to 12 months, and based upon one of the following scenarios:

 

1. Red Beach: Soviet amphib assault

2. Kola Strike: Carrier attack on the Kola

3. Strait Jacket: PRC vs Taiwan/USA

4. Kick down the Door: Strait of Hormuz

 

Though No.4 garnered the most votes, my personal preference would be for one of the other three, or some other idea if folks want to make suggestions. The South China Sea (Spratlys/Paracels/etc) comes to mind as a potential option.

1. Red Beach: Soviet amphib assault

2. Kola Strike: Carrier attack on the Kola

3. Strait Jacket: PRC vs Taiwan/USA

4. Kick down the Door: Strait of Hormuz

 

Though No.4 garnered the most votes, my personal preference would be for one of the other three, or some other idea if folks want to make suggestions. The South China Sea (Spratlys/Paracels/etc) comes to mind as a potential option.

 

I'm kinda Hormuz'd out at this time, not that I would not participate. Red Beach would be somewhat more tactical, while vintage Kola, and PRC/Taiwan would be much more operationally driven. I think that Red Beach would be smaller, more manageable for a first or seldom time umpire cpx/mbx opportunity. If Red Beach would be selected, would the current GCS system be used...or something less of a math exercise? Could you beg the new GCS out of the Admiralty in order to "playest" one of their very own scenarios?