@Private-Panic said in NML 1914 team game 16:
@Elrood Your Turks were lucky! But then your Austrians were not.
leave me alone! I am not the bad guy here! :-O
1914 NML UK vs Us
-
Adam the Merciless here!:muscle:
Happy to change maps, although not keen on WaW. Wouldn’t mind a game of TAW although may not be everyone’s cup of tea?
-
@Private-Panic
TAW is the Total Ancient War map? -
I’m fine with pretty much anything except the standard A&A maps as those are just boring at this point.
-
@Degrasse said in 1914 NML UK vs Us:
@Private-Panic
TAW is the Total Ancient War map?That’s right. Sorry about not liking WAW but I play for fun and don’t enjoy it.
-
I should add that I am happy to play any of the maps except WaW.
-
@Degrasse @redrum @captainwalker @Wittmann So what are we playing then?
-
@Private-Panic I’m good giving TAW a try if that’s the consensus. I played it once or twice a while ago. I would suggest folks at least open it up and play a round if we do go with that as its a bit different.
-
Not my favourite; I think I played twice and lost to Afam. But happy to play ; you Know I don’t whine, just because I lose.
Not sure what else to suggest otherwise . -
@Wittmann Did you just admit to losing to Adam?
-
@redrum before he said it , yes.
He is suddenly growing balls and getting lucky. I am almost depressed. -
I am njt sure how easily TAW will work as a team game . Is there enough scope to talk tactics ?
Should we stick to 1914, but give Germany 2 ICs, one in Wurtemburg and the other in Prussia ?
You guys can be the CPs again , if you wanted . -
So what do @Degrasse and @captainwalker want to do?
I don’t understand why Leo thinks there are no TAW tactics to talk about! Perhaps it explains why I beat him?!
-
@Private-Panic talking to yourself doesn’t count.
-
@Wittmann Surely you have realised by now that when you tell everyone else what to do you may as well be talking to yourself?
-
Pick a new map and let’s go. I’m pretty flexible.
-
@Private-Panic This game is very simple. (Hence I am no good at it). Each of us would only have two or three moves per nation.
There are 11 powers . If we played 3 would take the Roman Alliance, as they have 6 amd the other two would have to take the 5 Carthaginian partners.
No idea how to choose sides , but once chosen, I thjnk the first player takes Rome, his ally takes Greece and Pergamon, then the Carthaginian pair have their 5 goes. The third Roman ally then does his two , followed by the Roman player doing Armenia, then his next aRoman go. -
@Wittmann I have not played this since I last beat you, so my memory is hazy. However, I remember it as being similar to Napoleon in complexity. I thought it a fun game, certainly worthy of an occasional visit. However, I am not pushing for a game of TAW - it was just an attempt to suggest something diverting and new for a laugh. As I said above I am happy to play anything except WaW.
It is pretty hard to agree a game without any response from @captainwalker though. I hope he has not caught the dreaded virus. Do our colonial cousins know how he is and/or what his thoughts are?
I presume you have taken a look and are right about the number of powers in each side. However, I don’t see why that necessitates 3 players being the 6 Rome/Allies, leaving 2 players for the 5 Carthaginian Bloc. When we play 1914 we don’t mandate that 3 players take the 7 Entente powers and 2 the 4 CP nations.
Instead why don’t we keep the US vs UK format (which adds a little fun to the proceedings) and play 2 games with a change of sides.
-
@Wittmann Oops! Should have also said that others prefer to split the powers the way you suggest then fine with me.
-
@Private-Panic I"m around…just been busy working. TAW is fine with me…let me know when it’s ready.
-
@captainwalker Thanks for the reply. We are all agreed to give TAW a go.
@captainwalker @redrum @Degrasse We have 2 suggestions for playing it. Which do you prefer?
Option1:
@Wittmann said in 1914 NML UK vs Us:
There are 11 powers . If we played 3 would take the Roman Alliance, as they have 6 amd the other two would have to take the 5 Carthaginian partners.
No idea how to choose sides , but once chosen, I thjnk the first player takes Rome, his ally takes Greece and Pergamon, then the Carthaginian pair have their 5 goes. The third Roman ally then does his two , followed by the Roman player doing Armenia, then his next aRoman go.Option 2:
@Private-Panic said in 1914 NML UK vs Us:
I presume you have taken a look and are right about the number of powers in each side. However, I don’t see why that necessitates 3 players being the 6 Rome/Allies, leaving 2 players for the 5 Carthaginian Bloc. When we play 1914 we don’t mandate that 3 players take the 7 Entente powers and 2 the 4 CP nations.
Instead why don’t we keep the US vs UK format (which adds a little fun to the proceedings) and play 2 games with a change of sides.
Suggested Topics
