no description available
I prefer the idea of draw chits whereas you pull from a cup for each nation a random leader and can use it only on that turn, then draw another next turn.
The information would have his picture plus a number–the higher the better.
In combat, the number and or type of unit is boosted +1 that first round only in one battle.
Example: turn 2 you draw Rommel as Germany. His leadership rating is 5. The first combat round in one battle, up to FIVE Artillery and Tanks get a +1
How bout we agree that the ladder should have a multiplayer division. Like in Tennis–singles and doubles…
Well about 3-4 posts are gone already. I just want to play a game with the other guy so we can see which ideas work better. I offered him $10 so he could send that to you as a patron on the condition that he provide his steam number and make friends and win prizes. I already did this but he declines which is his choice, but it will allow anybody else to see if his record matches the rhetoric and play a game with him. Isn’t this 1942 Online? The topic isn’t UK Factory in Egypt either. I posted about that and the Russian strategy under KJF but was criticized for being incomplete or too basic.
yea sorry it is. ok enough
@DoManMacgee said in [GUIDE] How to Climb the Ranked Ladder A&A 1942 SE Online Beamdog:
IRL if you play with multiple players in some kind of tournament setting, the good players are going to dictate to the lesser players.
Not necessarily true, lessor players have no idea who a “better” player would be unless they watched their games and this kibitzing feature is not possible on 42 online. You can always send messages, but nobody has to follow. And Psychology of how you approach other players is one of the traits that was part of the real war. AA being unrealistic has zero to do with it being a simulation. It is a simulation, albeit unrealistic but painting the broadstrokes of History. It is not an abstract game.
I would not want to play 2 player Monopoly or 2 player Risk because you lose everything in terms of a multi dimensional-- dynamic game. You learn alot more when you deal with more players who have their own way of playing and in turn you need to be flexible enough to interpret what they are doing.
So according to you its not a simulation but a ‘Wargame’ which means what? A wargame is a simulation.You mean they make abstract Wargames? I think your being disingenuous to say the least.
So you play 1vs.1. You beat a lessor player or lose to a better player. It’s the same as playing 4-5! You lose to USUALLY a dominant player who brings his team to a win, or vice versa. But playing 1 v 1 only gives you one player to learn from or a shallow win against that one other player. Also, note that conventions with FTF Tournaments ALWAYS HAVE TEAMS, so control freaks will have to learn to get along with others and learn compatibility in different approaches to the game. In these we play as a team, where all decisions are made together, but deference is granted to the controlling player. If you fail too many times in a team setting, the weakest player is YOU.
Now that you don’t buy AA as a simulation, playing 3-6 nations as one “robot” with perfectly syncopated parts in unison is even less than a simulation as you protest it is. I think the problem is you don’t play many games except with one other guy who lives nearby, if a bunch of people lived near you, you would enjoy such games more.
The Historical aspect of playing a game based on History 1940-45 is replete with examples of at times divergent and competing strategies of leaders fighting together! AA is a Historical based game and a wargame ( light) and you lose alot of what the game can be if you avoid multiplayer games.
Planes can fly over of course. We were talking about land
very small villages. The area has gotten better, but a modern army has no business staging in the Sahara.
Large formations could not be sustained or cross. Rommel had enough problems just providing logistics for his forces even with established roads and climate near the ocean. Their is NOTHING there.
Well its funny that i beat him 2-0, and NOW he cant give out his 4 number ID…saying i can just easily look him up which is another excuse in a long line. Bottom line is he does not want me to expose his record so the wall of text in terms of credibility is nothing more than cotton candy. Heck if somebody with a proven record had something good to offer, i would seriously listen…Cow are you reading this? My ID is #2799 BTW and i stand behind my record even if im convinced the Dice Roller is messed up and i only play 4-5 player games. This compounds the difficulty in dealing with different attitudes toward the games conduct. We could even post the on-goings of the game so everyone could follow. The good thing is if i ever play him a third time, i will post his ID here.
