Play by mail

[panzergator]

Having noticed several posts from folks looking and failing to find groups or just out in isolation somewhere, I would point out that we have lots of modern technology that should permit some kind of "play by mail." There are hexes that can have letters and numbers on a mutually established, third party game board, there is Skype. there is a variety of tech that can be used, set up by somebody far more skilled than I.

You gamers ought to be all over this. I understand that its nice to see the board. You can set one up and view it from one side or another, so that some things are hidden by camera angles.

GHQ or Scale Creep Miniatures, get on this. It's a great way to do business - people can subscribe for the privilege. It might even be cheap for participants from different parts of the country. A guy in Canada can play a guy in Florida, or a lot of other combinations from anywhere in the world.For those with limited room, you may not have a garage or a basement, but if you line up your stuff for the game and use a virtual board (think "Battleship), it can be done..

[Extra Crispy]

I am part of some Facebook groups where players play by skype. Even without hexes, if both sides are honorable lads, it's really no problem.

I have proposed a system of semi-solo play, as follows:

1) Write up the scenario for each side - OOB, orders, objectives etc. Provide a map of the terrain.

2) Have each side submit a battle plan - deployment, axis of advance etc.

3) You start the game solo following both battle plans.

4) When you come to a major decision point, send out an updated Sit-Rep to each side and have them adjust the plan.

Your "players" cannot micro manage, they have to stay more "big picture" focused.

I've done this and it was a hoot.

[Extra Crispy]

I am part of some Facebook groups where players play by skype. Even without hexes, if both sides are honorable lads, it's really no problem.

I have proposed a system of semi-solo play, as follows:

1) Write up the scenario for each side - OOB, orders, objectives etc. Provide a map of the terrain.

2) Have each side submit a battle plan - deployment, axis of advance etc.

3) You start the game solo following both battle plans.

4) When you come to a major decision point, send out an updated Sit-Rep to each side and have them adjust the plan.

Your "players" cannot micro manage, they have to stay more "big picture" focused.

I've done this and it was a hoot.

[BurtWolf]

Great post - I would be interested in doing something like that. I imagine it wouldn't be hard to find something to adapt, it is just finding the time to put it together...

[paul]

I will say Mark did this not long ago. We had around 6 players on each side give orders for a Team Yankee game.

[panzergator]

When we played Dunn Kempf waaaayyyy back in 1979, commanders and staff were in rooms where they could not see the board. Decisions were made base on the plans, sitreps, and spot reports from the units. That may be the concept you are looking for.

[piersyf]

I mentioned before that I prefer campaigns... this is how we played them (although not with a table, just maps). Send our orders to the umpire who tracks movement and when there's a contact we play that game. If it's a minor thing or an ambush, the umpire plays the game solo on behalf of the players and it's only when the losing side fails to report in that you get an idea something happened.

We have also used sub-commanders; so one 'general' on either side, an umpire, and anyone else that plays gets command of elements of either force (usually an armoured breakthrough force or a recon force... something that you want to be able to operate independently).

If you want to be REALLY nasty, put your better player in charge of logistics. They do well, but almost always suffer from a lack of protection from the less experienced general, who then starts losing badly because he's running out of supplies.