.ORG .VS. TWC IH?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Would you be up for a IH like this? Like hosting a Napolaeiac IH and let players from both sites sign up and form allainces and such?


TWC Link:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...27#post8445327

[King Kurt]

Warman - the idea of a 2 forum IH is that one side does not know who the other forum is - that was the sucess of Duel on the sea - we had no idea who the other side was, only Kraxis knew.
The host just gathers info from both sides to come to a conclusion. The other big advantage is that all the debate is open on the forum and that encourages involvement.

[Franconicus]

I was already wondering if it would be an option to divide the players into two teams - let's say axis aand allies. Could be more teams, but let's keep it simple. Each team gets a threat for its own for discussing the strategy and the next step. Of course this thread would have to be blocked for all others - at leastdas long as the game is going on.
Additionally there could be an official thread, where the story goes.
Each team could be moderated by a person.

The pros would be, that there could be discussions and games team against team. Everybody could investigate as much time as he wants and the game would be open for new players.
Cons are, that you have to work with restrictions and that it would be hard for externals to follow. And there would be the threat of sabotage.

[Kagemusha]

This could be done via hidden subforums here in chapter house. It would also mean that people could not get into either team once the game was running, or the danger of espionage/ sabotage might be too big. In this kind of IH the subject could first be a single battle and if a test would be successful, it could be expanded. With two password protected hidden subforums. We would not need to play the game on separate forums.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

It be a good idea. We just need some players from both forums and a host.

[Franconicus]

Maybe we also need a story

[Kagemusha]

I am thinking of testing this with battle of gettysburg. One team could play the Union while the other playing Confederates.The thing is should we have each player as Corps commander with one being the commander in chief, or should the team lead the entire force via democratic decision making?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Fran- No kidding Dick Tracy. I still think a good 7 years war IH is good.

Kage- We could do that. If you give me a bit more info, then I can convey that to the TWC IH crew then.

[Peasant Phill]

Sign me up. The last inter-forum IH was really great.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Maybe someone can help me recruit some people from TWC.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Net vs Org would undoubtedly be biased by the host. I highly suggest a mixed game over a versus game.

Though I probably won't be playing

From a twc player

[Ignoramus]

Sign me up too!

[Andres]

You could do it on the .Org alone and use social groups as "hidden fora".

[Kagemusha]

This game will be in any case hosted in the Org.There is no need for it to be Org vs TWC. Just two groups of people playing against each other. Andres thats a great idea!

[Franconicus]

count me in!

By the way, Gettysbourg sounds a bit too difficult for a test. The battle was just too big and there are too many details known. Why not just a small battle from the CW?

[Kagemusha]

count me in!

By the way, Gettysbourg sounds a bit too difficult for a test. The battle was just too big and there are too many details known. Why not just a small battle from the CW?

Because there are several good maps concerning the battle area, but i will have a look if i can find some for a smaller engagement. Atleast i cant host this kind of thing without using a map as everything might turn out too confusing if the situation is only described with words.

[Hooahguy]

What does IH stand for?
EDIT: Nevermind, Interactive history.
But how do these things work?

[Franconicus]

What does IH stand for?
EDIT: Nevermind, Interactive history.
But how do these things work?

Awful difficult. It means that the host takes a piece of history - a battle, a campaign or a certain period. The players take historical roles - as single players or teams. Their decisions - usually roundbased - influence the way of history. After each round, the host gives an update and the next round begins. Some IH give the players options to chose others are more or less free.

[Hooahguy]

So how would that work on a competitive basis?

[King Kurt]

Put me down for this ACW IH - Gettysberg would be good to do, but quite a challenge. Maybe a smaller, less well known battle would be interesting - something out west maybe?

[Warluster]

I'd also like to join... on the .Org team obviously.

Surely we'll win... The founder forums... people who have been playing for over four-five years? As well as being the best forum!

[Peasant Phill]

If you are still looking for another forum to play against, I have one in mind that would probably work well.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Who would that be Phill,give us info and the link.

[Peasant Phill]

Who would that be Phill,give us info and the link.

Wasn't the problem with playing against the TWC that members knew the opposition and could listen in on the other?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Private sub-forums we can use Phill, but true though what you said.

Atleast tell us this, have they said they be up for a forum .vs. forum battle.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I've spoken to my friends over at the 'Hello Kitty Holiday Adventure Games' forum, and they are willing to play you guys.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Kudos to Louis.

[Peasant Phill]

Great

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Hope we find new IH soon, I miss my IH's .

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

http://roleplayerguild.com/

Maybe they can join us in one?