Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Combat Commander: Europe» Forums » Variants

Subject: 4 Player Combat Commander anyone? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Cutthroat Cardboard (Barry)
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Our games group has four players and when we all get together we like to play games that include everyone. We own multiple copies of CC:E and so far have been playing two player. It has struck me however that it might be possible to play 4 player if everyone had their own deck and played a separate force. Before I go off and pull my thoughts together has anyone else tried?

My basic idea is to play a DYO scenario with each player getting a platoon and each side getting one support. This should limit each player to 2 orders and a limited number of units. If both axis players then both allied players play at the same time, one before the other by their choice each turn, the sequencing of play should be OK.

The problems I forsee.

1.Both forces might end up huddled around one objective?

I don't think this will be too bad with platoon sized manouver groups.

2. Too many orders and too many cards.

The orders aren't a problem because they scale with size in a two player game. Each side however will have twice as many cards to issue those orders and so in areas where both forces on one side are operating orders, such as fire, may be far more effective. (For example player one fires at an enemy unit then player two fires at the same unit, this potentially doubles the frequency of fire because you have two hands and so will increase the effectiveness of fire over a given time scale.)

3. Twice as many events.

I don't think there's any getting away from this one!

If I'm not missing an obvious game breaker then I think I can live with most of the above. I might have to manipulate setup and restrict the objective chits to make the chances of there being two high value objectives more likely.

Anyone got any comments before we try it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Irving
United States
Harrisburg
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe the Up Front team game system might work--two side by side games, along an extended battle line. Player can fire and send units across to the other board. Here are few ideas off the top of my head (They kind of grew as I started writing! :

Each game has 2 players. On each turn for the side, BOTH players complete their turn together. Each order is done at one at at a time, both players have to interleave their orders and decide bewtween themselves which player will do the next order. Actions cannot be played for the opponent: If a unit is on his half of the board (and thus he controls it) fires, I can't play cards to aid his fire attack.

The only legal communication of the cards in their hands would be to determine which player performs the next order, state they aren't doing anymore orders or their desire to pass this turn and discard. (If they are arguing who is performing the next order, the other side can start a 5 second countdown for that other side to announce or they ends their turn immediately. Get on with it!)

Possibly, one player may be allowed to discard but he has to announce this first and can do no orders or actions for the turn.

Each player controls all friendly units that start on his half of the board for the turn and can only issue orders to activate those units. The player who moves/advances of a unit keeps control of unit for the rest of the turn.

Firing across the border would be allowed (line up the boards accurately for LOS issues.) Op Fire would be allowed across the line--both players could choose to op fire at the came time, but they each need a Fire card to do so. The location of the defending units determines which deck is drawn for their defense rolls.

If one off board artillery is used by a side, it is controlled only by one player on the side at any time. Artillery Fire can be spotted onto the other side using normal LOS rules. The other player can use an Artillery Request card to shift control to him--move the radio chit. (This would be analogous to competing fire requests for the arillery teams. It might possible that both players could access to separate artillery crews.) Artillery denied can only be played by the opponent on the same board as the player who currently controls a radio.

Events drawn on one player's board are resolved on that board only, except when the event calls for "adjacent hex" or "closest unit/weapon/etc.", it may affect the other board. Breezes affect only the board they are drawn for, blaze hexes on this hexes adjacent to the border will spread the blaze to the other board if the wind blows in that direction.

Players can show their teammate their hidden objective for their board.

Time checks: The time marker is only advanced if a time check is performed the Axis side (This is to account for there being twice as any Time triggers/decks in play). Reinforcements that enter play may arrive on either board. Digins may be played only the player who is shuffling is deck for the time check or the opposing player on his board. A smoke chit may be removed from either board.

One player has no units on their board they can perfrom no orders or discards until friendly units re-appear on his board. If both players on the same side have no units, the game ends.

Surrender & VP should be tracked on an overall basis.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rri1 wrote:
Maybe the Up Front team game system might work--two side by side games, along an extended battle line.


This makes a lot of sense; of course specific two-map scenarios would have to be prepared. I would personally prefer to be able to use the equipment in a single set and I'm almost certain there would be a way around the problem of sharing one deck. This might also allow one player against two if three players is all you have.

It seems to me twice as many events wouldn't be a problem; the relevant even occurring on the map for which it was drawn; forces wouldn't end up huddled around one objective because each force would have different objectives on their respective maps.

For the orders the deck can be split (or just share the same deck); the deck can be shuffled together when one player runs out of cards and dealt two ways again. This may mean the decks cycle quicker but the time marker advancement could be kept to one side (Axis or Allies) or could be set at every second deck exhaustion (regardless of which side's deck is exhausted).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cutthroat Cardboard (Barry)
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
fellonmyhead wrote:
rri1 wrote:
Maybe the Up Front team game system might work--two side by side games, along an extended battle line.


This makes a lot of sense; of course specific two-map scenarios would have to be prepared. I would personally prefer to be able to use the equipment in a single set.


There may well be some merit on the Up Front approach. I'll give it some thought, though at this stage it would produce a bigger and slightly more complex game than I had in mind.

My concern with a single deck was time advancement and maybe a worry that the random dice and card mix would be effected by the different drawing patern that two players would have.

I don't feel the need for two maps unless you move up to playing a detachment or above each. We've just finished a two player platoon Vs platoon game. It took us two hours, manouvering around map ten, and was pretty cagey. Doubling this and playing with four players looks like it should be OK to me.

We're going to try it on Tuesday night with a platoon each plus one support on map 12 so we'll soon see how we get on!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J Mathews
United States
Renton
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One reason that I am excited about CC:Med is the possibility of giving each of 4 players their own deck and nationality and rolling up and playing a 2x2 game on one of the maps. The counters being different colors and such will make it easy to tell the differences and things should go smoothly. Although, considering the ahistorical nature of what I am proposing, I'll probably have to tweak the scenario generator rules a bit. But it should work well once Med comes out. Chad- are there any plans to create a 4-player, 2x2 scenario generator (ie, the Germans and Axis Minors against the US and UK or something like that)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Jensen
United States
SANTA ROSA
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Chad- are there any plans to create a 4-player, 2x2 scenario generator (ie, the Germans and Axis Minors against the US and UK or something like that)?


Perhaps further down the road; but nothing that will be included in CC:Med.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Young
Wales
Wellesley
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
And if you never have, you should. These things are fun and fun is good.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How about a Campaign game with a special map aka ASL?

That would ROCK!

Andy
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cutthroat Cardboard (Barry)
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:
Quote:
Chad- are there any plans to create a 4-player, 2x2 scenario generator (ie, the Germans and Axis Minors against the US and UK or something like that)?


Perhaps further down the road; but nothing that will be included in CC:Med.


Chad, was there ever an attempt at a CC multi-player variant during the games creation or play testing? If so I'd be interested to know what the perceived problems with it's implementation were?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Jensen
United States
SANTA ROSA
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Chad, was there ever an attempt at a CC multi-player variant during the games creation or play testing?


None. CC was envisioned as and playtested as a solely 2-player affair.

Not saying that it couldn't be done, just that I have no starting information for anyone willing to take on the task.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cutthroat Cardboard (Barry)
Scotland
Edinburgh
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:
Quote:
Chad, was there ever an attempt at a CC multi-player variant during the games creation or play testing?


None. CC was envisioned as and playtested as a solely 2-player affair.


Thanks Chad.

We'll give it a go with four decks. It'll not be as focused/ballanced as two player and we might even come accross some fundamental problems but part of gaming is about getting together and I have a feeling that multi-player will be good fun.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Jensen
United States
SANTA ROSA
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Let us know how it goes, Barry. Perhaps we'll be able to create a 4-playe variant out of your experience.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morgan McDermott
United States
West Hollywood
California
flag msg tools
mbmb
Barry...

I'll be very curious to hear about any experiences you have with a four player variant.

I taught the game to a non-wargaming friend this weekend and he asked about a four player version so we could introduce a couple of our other friends to CC.

Thanks!
Morgan
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Jensen
United States
SANTA ROSA
CA
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How about playing two games side-by-side?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Morgan McDermott
United States
West Hollywood
California
flag msg tools
mbmb
Chad Jensen wrote:
How about playing two games side-by-side?


Ideally I think we'd like to be all able to participate in the same game.

However, now that I think about it I can see us playing two games simultaneously if the outcome of one game somehow affected the other and vice-versa. I don't have the Stalingrad pack yet so I haven't read the campaign rules but some sort of campaign system of related battles could be very fun to play with four players.

m
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Buetow
United States
McHenry
Illinois
flag msg tools
Combat Commander Archivist
badge
Move! Advance! Fire! Rout! Recover! Artillery Denied! Artillery Request! Command Confusion...say what?!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Heh. Eliminated units get YOU VPs but come in on your allied player's turn. Like Combat Commander Bughouse! laugh

I've got some gaming buddies who have mentioned the idea or using double sized deployments and double cards. I wouldn't try that stuff. The game is so good and balanced as is, it seems a shame to mess with it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.