Multiple allied sides in Multiplayer scenario: Pros and Cons?

[stormrider_sp]

I have been playing with the idea of having a big multiplayer scenario made up of 3 or 4 allied sides, each made up of a single company (troop) and a HQ side. The idea is to have sort of a 73 easting multiplayer scenario where one or two players control the red side while the blue side is controlled by the HQ squadron who coordinates the individual companies. The companies are manned as usual: to the last vehicle, if possible; if not, at least each section is controlled by a human player.

 

Except for the HQ side, each company side has 'map updates' set only for 'own party'. C^2 is done via TeamSpeak radio channels. Before committing to further developing the scenario, I'd like to ask more experienced steel beasts multiplayers for a concept review. What do you think and pros and cons. Thanks

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by stormrider_sp

[Apocalypse 31]

I just played a scenario like this, where a company had each platoon on a different side.

 

It certainly offers a challenge without seeing each other, and forces players to report more frequently.

 

The only significant drawbacks that I found were:

1. No shared graphics. As the CO, anytime I referenced a grid, I followed up by assigning it as a checkpoint # so it could be referenced again.

 

2. Dead players cannot be given a new vehicle once their platoon has been wiped out.

[Gibsonm]

Blue IFVs / APCs can't load Green dismounts.

 

Also be aware of limitations of CSS and Artillery, etc.

 

Blue IFVs can't restock say nearby Green ATGM teams

 

Blue ambulance / repair / supply / refuel trucks can't help Green.

 

Blue FOs can't access Green fire units.

 

For CSS, you need to give every sub unit its own dedicated "slice" and for fires you either need some fire units for each sub unit or co-ord the fires across the unit net.

 

We did something similar a while ago for Rolling Thunder 2014:

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Gibsonm