Predictability,Randomness, Luck, and Control
rjo...@rmi.net
concerning the role of Chance, the need for predicatability, the fear of
randomeness and not wanting 'Too much' Luck in a game design.
In fairness, Ty admited that, in the case of Pk, he had never played the game,
and some of his reaction was rooted in a visceral dislike of cards, more than
anything else. He also observed that the Four Horsemen of the Design Apocolypse
for him were Randomness, Chance, Unpredictability, and Lack of Control. Such
definitions as to how these qualities are used in a game and the degree that a
gamer finds them'good' or 'bad' is, of course, highly subjective.
I find Ty's concern with these issues more than interesting since I think the
pendulum in design as witnessed not just by Piquet, but Crossfire, The Rules
With No Name, Slaughterloo, and other recent designs is headed more strongly in
the direction of increasing these qualities in wargame design, and away from the
controlled, rigidly structured, designs typified by those games introduced in
the late 70s, and dominating the 1980s.
First, a comment on terms: Predictability, Randomness, Luck or Chance are not
the same thing, but elements that are each seperate though interelated.
Predictability is the ability, and comfort, of being able to know IN ADVANCE
what the expected range is of potential 'events' that can occur either in
movement or combat. In some games this range may be known EXACTLY. The classic
example of this is the Avalon-Hill CRT, where if you could get 3-1 odds on a
defender you knew exactly what the 6 possible outcomes were and that your
chances were quite assuredly good, and the only variable in achieving these odds
were completely under your control-only the die roll resolution was a
'variable', and that variable had a very limited range of outcomes. Movement
and stacking were the key rules to understand, and some gamers got quite
proficient in assembling the 'magic' numbers. Only the dice could beat you and
you could limit that threat quite well.
Randomness, at its core, just means that the next occurence has no assured
pattern. It should be noted that randomness in a statistical sense can be a
'neutral' arbiter of fairness. Most 'fixed' move sequences mean that you can
know EXACTLY when the artillery will fire, the cavalry will move, or the
reinforcements will enter the field of battle. Good gamers can, again, use that
foreknowledge to maximize their chances for success, and this prescient
knowledge will affect their move strategies by knowing EXACTLY when they are
threatened by cavalry, or vulnerable to artillery fire. Only gross inattention
could allow the enemy to surprise you, and a firm knowledge of this sequence
means you could limit that threat quite well.
Chance and luck are often misunderstood, and many a rule set founders on the
designer's misunderstanding of the mathematics of chance. It is also a 'Joker'
in the game design, Most gamers want to feel that a wargame is a game of skill,
but know that chance roams the battlefield. Many gamers are quite comfortable
with chance determining weapon effectiveness, and an occasional 'critical hit',
but grow uncomfortable with wider applications of either randomness or 'luck'.
They fear that it will minimize their control of events, and devalue their
skill.
This skill is measured in their mind by closely controlling the movement of
troops, weighing the EXACT combat values of their units by weaponry and number,
and thereby placing these units in a position against an enemy force, whose
values are also known, where chance is minimized, so that the one variable, a
die roll, in a game is essentially heavily limited, and their abilities are
rewarded with victory!
Tedious game! Bad history! The examples of commanders of small forces or large
that found their well laid plans frustrated by a subordinate's delay,
misunderstanding, or perfidity, as well has Mala Fortuna, are so legion as to be
COMMON in battle reports.
The lack of precise knowledge as to what exactly is going on 'up front'
requiring a commander to use judgement, guestimates, and experience to pierce
the 'fog of war' is truly the NORMAL situation for a commander, not the
exception. The inability, on all levels of command, to predict what would occur
next, in any degree of detail, were quite limited and required deduction and
knowledge of your force, and the enemy to have any success. It was NOT a
given-Ask Hooker, Mack, or Custer!
Chance or luck constantly haunted the perceptions of top command. Napoleon,
when introduced to a young Brigadier that was described as learned in the
literature of warfare having read Caesar and Frederick; a master of the
Drillbook and regulations, and incredibly brave, only asked, "Yes, but is he
lucky?"
Von Clauswitz in his 'Vom Krieg' comments that of all human activities war most
closely resembles a game of cards!
And yet, gamers worry that unless the design allows them total knowledge, total
control, and total limitations on the allowed outcomes, their 'SKILL' will be
lost in a mere game of die throws, card draws, and luck.
The root of this has been a long standing feeling that Chess was the best game
metaphor for battle-minimal chance, total intelligence of terrain and troop
values, defined movement, set sequence, and skill would be gained by practice
and experience in manipulating these set patterns on the field of play.
Wargames have often be called 'Battle-Chess' and designers and gamers have
fallen into the habit of viewing their games in this light.
I think many current designers are rejecting this metaphor as one that portrays
battle/war poorly, and are substituting what I call the 'Poker' metaphor. In
this view of battle, each side has hidden resources, of varying value, that they
must use to defeat their adversaries. This requires judgement, experience, and
knowledge of the enemy. You must estimate his strength-whether he is
bluffing(feinting) or has the necessary strength to contest your 'attack'. You
must pay attention to Army morale( Your money/chips) and you must deal with
chance on an ongoing basis-never knowing from hand to hand (Hour to hour) what
the capabilities of your force may exactly be, but constantly striving to
maximize the chance of victory through management of all the variables in the
game.
Poker has a high degree of chance and randomness, but a 'pro' will have all your
money before the night's over 95% of the time. Skill is as present in Poker as
in Chess.
As a manager in business, I know that nothing is a given- a fixed and
predictable set-piece, but is, very much, the skill acquired in managing a wide
range of variables to maximize your chances of success, NOT lining up a shopping
list of fixed, given, obvious factors and eliminating risk.
Officers in the military that wish to be successful must acquire this trait of
juggling variables,unknowns, chance, and the unexpected. It is this ability to
deal with the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' that distinguishes the
great officers from the drones. And yet many a wargame design speaks more to
the skills of an accountant and CPA than to the issues of variable management.
And the big joke, is that when you do play 'Chess with dice' and the only
variable in the game is the die-roll resolution of combat-Luck,randomness, and
chance actually have a proportionately larger role in determining the victor
than in games that allow more variability throughout the game structure.
Finally, the use of any randomnizing tool, whether regular dice, decimal dice,
multi-sided dice, playing cards, custom cards, or coin flips says NOTHING about
the design itself. They are merely tools that a designer uses in a design to
create given effects. To reject a game simply because it uses a different tool
confuses the medium with the message!
BJ
GR8BRI10
enjoy the "unexpected" in a game system. It adds to the confusion of combat. I
also like the fact that games can hinge on a player who gets hot with his/her
dice rolls or the player that can't hit to save his/her life. I agree that some
systems become too predictable in the sequence of game play and the games seem
to bog down. The first game I played that introduced random movement, firing
sequence was The Sword And the Flame. A player has to choose wisely which unit
to move first or last, which unit to fire first an so on. If a rule system is
done correctly the introduction of "chance cards" will be a fantastic addition
to any game.
Dallas Gavan
I think the reason many rules use a formalised, rigid sequence is so
that the designer can break the action down into understandable
segments. Let's face it, combat is a very scary, confusing and personal
experience at the individual level. At higher levels the confusion
decreases marginally but it's still there. And for someone who's never
been in combat, either at the sharp end or in a HQ somewhere, making
sense of what happens is going to be difficult at best and impossible at
worst.
So they break it up into mechanics that can be measured- men marching
will move within in set variation of distances. How terrain affects
these movements can be worked out either by experimentation or
observation. Weapons have measurable ranges and there's various tables
showing experimental results in which "effectiveness" is measured.
Vehicle speeds are tabulated. The list goes on.
A designer takes all this "hard" data and fits it into a framework to
give results that fit the published data. He gets it "right" in so far
as the weapon effectiveness will coincide with the Hannoverian
experiments listed in his reference book. Troops will cross X yards in
Y minutes if they're in Z formation. The rules are "historical".
But then he has to get this all working together. Make everyone move at
once or by sides. Make all firing simultaneous or simultaneous by
sides. That way there's no argument about "You can't move there because
I'm going to get there first". If it's your turn, you will get there
first. This approach has problems and so different approaches are
tried- intitiative rolls, random movement sequence, etc.
But the real things that most effect combat effectiveness- training,
experience, leadership, motivation, staff procedures, morale- are too
"soft" for hard data. How do you measure motivation? How do you get a
numerical value for effective staff work? It's all lumped into the
too-hard basket and we get morale ratings to reflect personal factors
and command radii, more orders available or more options in the card
deck to reflect better staff procedures.
War is an inherently random activity. Even the charge in a cartridge
will vary randomly, which is why combat ammo has a minimum group a rifle
can shoot, even in a stand. But to me it's the personal factors that
aren't well represented. Whether a game uses random card draws, rigid
sequences or kriegspeil free-form, until they can replicate the human
side they're still the same. Some are more exciting than others, some
less so. Some are even "more historical" insofar as the results they
give are reasonable according to the history I read while others aren't
(any rule that allows skirmishing infantry in the open to repel a heavy
cavalry charge on a regular basis will go into my waste-of-money file,
for example).
I don't know if reflecting these things is going to be possible or not.
I certainly haven't been able to do it so I went for an easy solution-
variable movement, decreased effectiveness and a complex though standard
morale system. It's as good as I can do and, as it's a house set and
not for publication, I can tinker away without worries of interference
from "rules masters" and their historical bibles.
There are those, though, that don't like this randomness. They want to
play a form of chess. A lot more complex, a lot more pieces but
nevertheless chess-like in it's predictability. Good luck to them- it's
their hobby and if they enjoy it then let them play it. Just as I don't
expect everyone to prefer my favourite meal, nor do I expect everyone to
prefer my approach to gaming. Those that do are like religious zealots,
trying to convert the heathen to the new faith. And religious zealots
rate just below politicians on my preferred list of live-fire targets.
;-)
Thanks for the post, mate. Fire away.
Dal.
--
http://www.freeyellow.com/members7/spanner/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Patrick Carroll
chess vs poker metaphors.
For now, I'd just like to mention something that happened to me in 1970. I had
bought AH's "Battle of the Bulge" a few months before, and a friend and I had
played it several times. One day (with my mother's persuasive assistance) I
managed to talk my dad into playing.
My dad served in the 101st Airborne during the defense of Bastogne. It was
seeing his eyes light up upon seeing the ad for the game that mainly inspired
me to buy it. But now, for some reason, he seemed a little reluctant to play.
I took the German side, thinking he'd surely want to control the 101st. But he
said he wanted to be the Germans, so he could see if he could find a way to
win, contrary to history. (I made him play the Americans anyway, because they
had fewer units to worry about, and he was new to the game.)
The most memorable moment of the game was when I started to explain the CRT.
He glanced in disbelief at the die and said, "What's that for?" I explained
that it's used, along with the CRT, to simulate the vagaries of combat. He
snorted in contempt, and I could see that any shred of belief he may have had
in this "military simulation" had flashed out of his consciousness. "I was
there," he said. "And I can tell you that combat has nothing to do with dice!"
Begrudgingly, he played the game out. But he never wanted to play it again. I
guess he could tell I was disappointed, because he said, "I'm sorry; I thought
it would be a realistic game--but it's not. Not at all."
As far as this particular combat veteran was concerned, if you have dice in a
wargame, you might as well be shooting craps.
Btw, my dad once suggested we build a sandtable and get into miniatures. I was
pretty young then and hadn't heard of miniatures. He explained a little about
how the game he envisioned would work. When I asked how players would know,
when a unit fired, whether the enemy had been hit, he said, "You'd just know.
You could tell just by the positions of the men--the movements and weapons."
Evidently the idea of a "randomizer" like dice or cards never even entered his
mind.
I don't know what any of this means. Just thought I'd share it as an anecdote
that may somehow connect to the discussion.
--PC
Charles Deily
your "Theory of Piquet."
Unfortunately, some people can't emotionally handle defeats, and blame their
losses on the system (be it dice, cards, or "him going first"). For me, one
of my best wargaming memories is when I was playing an On To Richmond
scenario, and reacted to the limited/misleading intelligence given to me by
the umpire in exactly the way that the historic general did. We lost, but
my teammates and I felt that I had "done the right thing." *That's*
wargaming!
Ty Beard
> In fairness, Ty admited that, in the case of Pk, he had never played the
game,
> and some of his reaction was rooted in a visceral dislike of cards, more
than
> anything else.
Actually, a visceral dislike of random activation systems.
> Chance and luck are often misunderstood, and many a rule set founders on
the
> designer's misunderstanding of the mathematics of chance. It is also a
'Joker'
> in the game design, Most gamers want to feel that a wargame is a game of
skill,
> but know that chance roams the battlefield. Many gamers are quite
comfortable
> with chance determining weapon effectiveness, and an occasional 'critical
hit',
> but grow uncomfortable with wider applications of either randomness or
'luck'.
> They fear that it will minimize their control of events, and devalue their
> skill.
And, by definition, it will devalue their skill. In a competent game design,
chance should affect all players equally on the average. In a game that has
no random elements (Chess), skill is virtually 100% of the equation
(ignoring psychology, etc.). As the randomness increases, the importance of
skill is devalued.
Let's say that you'll win a pure-skill game 80% of the time (because of your
superior skill) and I only win 20% of the time. Now, we randomize certain
elements and the net effect is to allow random chance decide the outcome of
50% of the games. See what has happened? You'll win 40% on skill and 25% on
luck -- 65% of the games. I'll win 35% -- a 75% increase in my number of
victories.
A game with more chance will increase the win total for mediocre players and
decrease the win total for skillful players.
Of course, every designer of "high chance" systems insists that the chance
element:
1. Is really quite small, statistically; and
2. Is offset by a purported increased skill requirement to "account for" the
chance element.
Bah. I've yet to see a design that lived up to either claim. Of course, Bob,
I haven't yet played PK :)
As stated in a different thread, I play to win. Winning is my goal and I
hate losing. Therefore, I tend to like more predictable games because they
optimize the effect of superior skill, IMHO.
> Tedious game! Bad history! The examples of commanders of small forces or
large
> that found their well laid plans frustrated by a subordinate's delay,
> misunderstanding, or perfidity, as well has Mala Fortuna, are so legion as
to be
> COMMON in battle reports.
Forgive me Bob, but this is pure drivel.
The notion that a wargame has any meaningful resemblance to real warfare is
absurd. Monopoly is a *better* simulation of real estate trading than PK (or
A Fistful of TOWs) is of real war. Period.
A sequential game is unrealistic -- whether the sequences are predictable or
not. So the use of randomizers are a band-aid on a gaping wound. For
realism, simultaneous pre-plotted movement is the only "realistic" option.
Too bad it really sucks in play...
What about the unlimited omniscience? The only "realistic" way to play a
wargame is a double-blind refereed miniature game. Anything else is
*hopelessly* unrealistic.
I could go on, but my point is clear. Wargames have so many compromises that
they bear no resemblance to real war. My wargaming friends who are combat
veterans assure me that playing Charlie Company is nothing like the battle
of Hue...
Therefore, I find this silly *cult of frustration* annoying. Designers
running about congratulating themselves on how brilliantly they frustrate
the players of their games. As if this was something to be proud of. And as
if it was particularly hard to do. Bah! Like all silly fads, this one shall
pass, I suppose.
For all of you geniuses who take such delight in frustrating players -- the
point is to enjoy the *game*. Because all the self-congratulatory drivel
won't obscure the fact that no wargame is even remotely realistic.
--Ty Beard
David
Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:BNEz3.968$oG5.36...@news.randori.com...
> <rjo...@rmi.net> wrote in message news:7qmajb$26...@edrn.newsguy.com...
<..snip..>
> Of course, every designer of "high chance" systems insists that the chance
> element:
>
> 1. Is really quite small, statistically; and
>
> 2. Is offset by a purported increased skill requirement to "account for"
the
> chance element.
>
> Bah. I've yet to see a design that lived up to either claim. Of course,
Bob,
> I haven't yet played PK :)
>
I think the key missing element is "intuition" (gut feeling, etc..). Yes,
in a real battle there are a lot of unforseen events/variables. And one of
those is just how effective a unit will be in combat. Besides the "track
record" of the unit in previous battles, I believe a good commander can get
a "feeling" on how a unit of men (or subordinate commander) will do on a
given day. It's those little things we pick up at a subconcious level that
"something's not quite right" or "there's an excitement in the air". The
metal figures and the plastic dice give off no intuitive signals - we cannot
"feel" that the next die roll will be a "6" or the next card drawn will be a
"Reload" (although I suppose we could "count cards"). All methods to
simulate plans gone awry (activation dies rolls, PK's card drawing, etc..)
are artificial and "feel" artificial - I don't feel like I'm dealing with
masses of human warriors, I feel like I'm betting on probability algorithm.
I think that the best generals had an empathic understanding of their men,
which is lost on the game table. Probably the best we can do is what Frank
Chadwick stated in his Volley & Bayonet rules (which have very crude C&C) -
(pg 92) "...get your friends to be your subordinate commanders and play
multi-player games. I have never been in a multi-player game where everybody
did exactly what their commander told them to do and what they're teammates
expected them to do. You don't need rules to duplicate unclear or
misunderstood orders. Just put another human in the loop. Your orders will
be unclear. Other players will misunderstand them."
--David
dkl...@localnet.com
Phil Dutre
Ty Beard wrote:
> And, by definition, it will devalue their skill. In a competent game design,
> chance should affect all players equally on the average. In a game that has
> no random elements (Chess), skill is virtually 100% of the equation
> (ignoring psychology, etc.). As the randomness increases, the importance of
> skill is devalued.
> A game with more chance will increase the win total for mediocre players and
> decrease the win total for skillful players.
Not necessarily. If chance factors are included, a lot is dependent on
how they are used in a game. In most games, you throw so many dice,
that the results are averaged out due to the law of large numbers.
However, they do affect micro-events. But a game is made up of a whole
series of these micro-events, such that the gamer with the better skill
will still prevail. The skill now includes to take into account the
probabilistic elements of the game. But it is still skill.
What is important though, is that players know what the probabilistic
factors are supposed to represent or simulate. Players who have a
problem
with drawing cards in Piquet often have no clue what the card-drawing
mechanism represent. Often, game designers explain insufficiently what
they are trying to model.
Phil
--
=======================================================================
Philip Dutre Program of Computer Graphics Cornell University
ph...@graphics.cornell.edu http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~phil/
=======================================================================
rjo...@rmi.net
>> Chance and luck are often misunderstood, and many a rule set founders on
>the
>> designer's misunderstanding of the mathematics of chance. It is also a
>'Joker'
>> in the game design, Most gamers want to feel that a wargame is a game of
>skill,
>> but know that chance roams the battlefield. Many gamers are quite
>comfortable
>> with chance determining weapon effectiveness, and an occasional 'critical
>hit',
>> but grow uncomfortable with wider applications of either randomness or
>'luck'.
>> They fear that it will minimize their control of events, and devalue their
>> skill.
>
>chance should affect all players equally on the average.
BJ: Though not a direct issue visa vis PK, I must ask why?
Chance is, in fact, quite UNEQUAL on occasion. One of the reasons the 'other'
roll in PK is NOT equal reflects the fact that in some periods, some armies are
decidedly 'unlucky'. One must allow for the fact that chance does not visit us
all with equal aplomb.
>In a game that has
>no random elements (Chess), skill is virtually 100% of the equation
>(ignoring psychology, etc.). As the randomness increases, the importance of
>skill is devalued.
BJ: Quite the contrary, The metaphor for Poker is perfect in this regard. Do
you truly believe you can beat me in poker? Regardless of the cards dealt on a
given evening, I ask you to please call and state your first available open date
and the table stakes!
>
>Let's say that you'll win a pure-skill game 80% of the time (because of your
>superior skill) and I only win 20% of the time. Now, we randomize certain
>elements and the net effect is to allow random chance decide the outcome of
>50% of the games. See what has happened? You'll win 40% on skill and 25% on
>luck -- 65% of the games. I'll win 35% -- a 75% increase in my number of
>victories.
BJ: TY, do you REALLY think that Napoleon won, Wellington won, solely because
there was NO chance in their endeavors? I suggest that they handled the
variables BETTER. The biggest lie in wargames is NOT about realism, but around
the fact that skill is found in controlling the constants, the"givens", better
than the other guy, when in history the victory went to those that dealt with
variables better!
>
>A game with more chance will increase the win total for mediocre players and
>decrease the win total for skillful players.
BJ: Bullshit! The more one is required to deal with the proper management of a
system that requires more subtle and indirect strategies, that includes the
management of 'shit happens' the closer one is to the issues of the battlefield.
You, sir, are a fan of the 'test-tube' experiment-the 'perfect' situation.
I must also comment that 'more chance' as a term applying to most present
designs, truly means not much chance-since most designers like NONE! Chance ,
information, the vaguaries if war, are all variables to be managed better than
the enemy-He who does wins a victory based on far more subtler bases than "I've
got 12, he's got 8----I need a 3 or better!"
Most algorithims in wargames are absurdly SIMPLE! Too simple!
>
>Of course, every designer of "high chance" systems insists that the chance
>element:
>
>1. Is really quite small, statistically; and
>
>2. Is offset by a purported increased skill requirement to "account for" the
>chance element.
>
>Bah. I've yet to see a design that lived up to either claim. Of course, Bob,
>I haven't yet played PK :)
BJ: Yah, we know!
>
>As stated in a different thread, I play to win. Winning is my goal and I
>hate losing. Therefore, I tend to like more predictable games because they
>optimize the effect of superior skill, IMHO.
BJ: That can be a good game, but it has less to do with any considerations of
wargames than a love of obvious mechanics.
>
>> Tedious game! Bad history! The examples of commanders of small forces or
>large
>> that found their well laid plans frustrated by a subordinate's delay,
>> misunderstanding, or perfidity, as well has Mala Fortuna, are so legion as
>to be
>> COMMON in battle reports.
>
>Forgive me Bob, but this is pure drivel.
BJ: Sorry, Ty, but you find me the account of ANY battle that has no curious
event, or even multiples of such events, and I'll buy the beer!
>
>The notion that a wargame has any meaningful resemblance to real warfare is
>absurd. Monopoly is a *better* simulation of real estate trading than PK (or
>A Fistful of TOWs) is of real war. Period.
BJ: No one has claimed reality-just that if you want to illustrate war as a
simple game of chess, I think my approach is closer to the mark.
>
>A sequential game is unrealistic -- whether the sequences are predictable or
>not. So the use of randomizers are a band-aid on a gaping wound. For
>realism, simultaneous pre-plotted movement is the only "realistic" option.
>Too bad it really sucks in play...
BJ: PK is non-sequential in terms of event progression. Pre-plotted moves and
troops held off the table are right up there with messenger figures galumphing
across the table as literalist-lame-obvious-and uninspired answers to the
problem.
>
>What about the unlimited omniscience? The only "realistic" way to play a
>wargame is a double-blind refereed miniature game. Anything else is
>*hopelessly* unrealistic.
BJ: Double blind is another obvious,lame, and uninventive answer. NO ONE would
willingly choose this course except the most stunted imaginations.
>
>I could go on, but my point is clear. Wargames have so many compromises that
>they bear no resemblance to real war. My wargaming friends who are combat
>veterans assure me that playing Charlie Company is nothing like the battle
>of Hue...
>
BJ: NO kidding! Since I served in Operation Marketime in Vietnam-I noticed the
difference too! It is interesting that Peter Young, Don Featherstone, and other
people that have actually experienced combat are far more attracted to simple
rules, fog of war, and chance than the gamers that only know it from history
tomes.
>Therefore, I find this silly *cult of frustration* annoying. Designers
>running about congratulating themselves on how brilliantly they frustrate
>the players of their games. As if this was something to be proud of. And as
>if it was particularly hard to do. Bah! Like all silly fads, this one shall
>pass, I suppose.
BJ: Have you ever managed anything other than yourself? The key to mangement is
leadership, overcoming 'friction', dealing with change and chance, and finding
solutions that are less obvious than roll a 5 or 6!
Ty, this is not a fad, but a new perspective on design that a half- dozen
designers 'get' and will substantially change the nature of how wargames are
played.
>
>For all of you geniuses who take such delight in frustrating players -- the
>point is to enjoy the *game*. Because all the self-congratulatory drivel
>won't obscure the fact that no wargame is even remotely realistic.
BJ: One can not hope for realism, but at least one can seek a game that touches
on real issues of war and command, and requires a subtler solution than the
arcane designs that ask so little of of the gamer!
BJ
rjo...@rmi.net
>
<<snip[>>
>What is important though, is that players know what the probabilistic
>factors are supposed to represent or simulate. Players who have a
>problem
>with drawing cards in Piquet often have no clue what the card-drawing
>mechanism represent. Often, game designers explain insufficiently what
>they are trying to model.
>
>Phil
BJ: Phil, with all due respect, Piquet has a complete article on the theory on
our main site, and over 100 articles on the mechanics on Magweb.
In addition, reviews have been written in all the major mags.
The cards are merely a randomized, unbalanced, and army particular, move
sequence.
That's it in one sentence! It creates an different way to model time, and leads
to more circumspect tactics on the table(closer to the typical conservative
tactics of history).
Anyone who doesn't understand the mechanic as used in Piquet cannot claim it is
because it is 'underexplained!'
BJ
Tim
think you are being too dismissive of Piquet's mechanisms. I had one of
your earlier incarnations of FFoT and though I didn't play it, I enjoyed
reading it and seeing some of your ideas - some of which <koff> <koff>
found their way into my home grown WWII rules before I abandoned them
for Crossfire. I haven't played Piquet yet, though we are going through
the rules to play for an ACW game later this Fall.
To say the randomness from drawing cards devalues a player's skill I
think is very wrong. In Piquet, like other games, you have some idea of
the capabilities of your troops. The drawing of the cards randomizes
the sequence of events; to be able to skilfully use the ever changing
sequence of events to fullest possible advantage qould require, IMHO,
just as much, possibly more, skill than manouevring and performing
actions in a set sequence game. Crossfire also calls for skill in
managing the time that is yours and which can be taken away from you in
an instant, long before you've completed what you hoped to.
Although I am the furthest thing in the world from a veteran, I do have
the experience of commanding troops on peacetime manouevres (these also,
I know are far away from real battle experience) and these exercises
drive home one thing: nothing is certain and the best laid plans at
least try to jump out the window the moment a contact appears! The
randomness of Crossfire's sequence (or lack of sequence), to my mind and
in my opinion, better represents what is happening than the sequenced
games I used to play. It gives a better feel for small unit tactics
than any other game I've played. Similarly, Piquet, I think (judging
from reading the rules and not having played) achieves this sort of
chaos with the randomizing of the sequence.
I would recommend reading the three paragraphs of Rob Wolsky's
introdcution to CF on the Crossfire website at
http://www.hitthebeach.com/kovalic/crossfire/faq/tactics.html
for a good explanation of why "event driven" games such as CF are
different from sequence games. I think this explanation probably also
has relevance to Piquet.
Although neither CF or PK are real life, they do (at least CF does, PK
does I think, but I'll see in a couple of months) present the players
with the challenge of how best to procede given circumstances beyond
their control. This is what commanders at all levels in real life have
to deal with (OK trolls, out there, I'm *not* saying thee games are
simulations of real life!!!!).
Other games such as Brother Against Brother and Mein Panzer try to do
the same sort of thing, at least with respect to what units move and
when.
Anyway, my perspective. Looking forward to the Fistful of ripostes this
may bring! 8)
Tim - http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^*~,_,~*^
,~*^#^*~, ^*~,_,~*^ "Stay away from Earth, freak!" - Babylon 5
,~*^#^*~, (anonymous bad guy to wierd alien)
Tim
Tim
Tim
Tim
nuk...@worldnet.att.net
> >they bear no resemblance to real war. My wargaming friends who are combat
> >veterans assure me that playing Charlie Company is nothing like the battle
> >of Hue...
> >
> BJ: NO kidding! Since I served in Operation Marketime in Vietnam-I noticed the
> difference too! It is interesting that Peter Young, Don Featherstone, and other
> people that have actually experienced combat are far more attracted to simple
> rules, fog of war, and chance than the gamers that only know it from history
> tomes.
>
Having handled years of exercise rotation data from the NTC, JRTC, and CMTC;
along with observing said exercises; having played with fellow field grade
professionals at CAC, Ft Leavenworth; having done the time in line units;
Yes, actually the C2 reflected in the vast majority of gaming rules do not
reflect the fog and war and FRICTION of military tactical operations. It is
interesting that the patron saint of the US Army War College, Clausewitz,
writes of the _friction_ of battle, the uncertainty. The object is to use
your _skills_ to minimize it and to exploit it, but realize you can not eliminate it.
Ablsolute control seen in too many rules is a myth. A key finding of the
Army Research Institute of failed NTC rotations was that units which were
micro-managed in garrison were defeated at the Center. The commander has to
trust and empower his subordinates or he, the commander, is overwhelmed with
decision making and directing. It, the idea of absolute control over an army
of robots, doesn't happen in reality.
> >Therefore, I find this silly *cult of frustration* annoying. Designers
> >running about congratulating themselves on how brilliantly they frustrate
> >the players of their games. As if this was something to be proud of. And as
> >if it was particularly hard to do. Bah! Like all silly fads, this one shall
> >pass, I suppose.
>
> BJ: Have you ever managed anything other than yourself? The key to mangement is
> leadership, overcoming 'friction', dealing with change and chance, and finding
> solutions that are less obvious than roll a 5 or 6!
>
How many of those out there have in fact been in the command structure at Brigade or
higher level?
It is a military term - FUBAR.
DAW
Patrick Carroll
>Most algorithims in wargames are absurdly SIMPLE! Too simple!
I'd say the problem is deeper than that: it's impossible to reduce real-life
war (or any slice of real life, for that matter) to an algorithm (of any
complexity).
The moment you try to do that, you're saying, in effect, "For now, let's just
turn a blind eye to 99 percent of the reality and focus on just this 1-percent
tip of the iceberg."
The resultant simulation may be impressive. But the designer & players should
not fool themselves into supposing that the simulation does much more than
scratch the surface.
Life is life, and war is war. It's not just a complex algorithm (with or
without random factors). Furthermore, I'd say there's always much more to life
(or battle, or war, or any slice of life) than meets the eye. Designers
routinely dismiss all those "unknowns" with a combination of abstraction &
randomity. That's OK, as long as one doesn't succumb to the illusion that he
has thereby achieved control or mastery over all the unknowns. All he has
really done is admit his ignorance and create a plausible workaround.
Thus, the way I see it, this whole discussion is a debate over how best to
simulate the "1-percent tip of the iceberg" in game form. Put in perspective,
it almost seems like a moot point, doesn't it?
After some thirty years as a wargamer, I've concluded that the *actual* games
of chess and poker do just about as good a job of simulating war as do wargames
based on the "metaphor" of poker or chess. The wargames just happen to be
laden with the kind of "chrome" that appeals to military-history buffs.
Ty Beard
>> Of course, every designer of "high chance" systems insists that the
chance
>> element:
>>
>> 1. Is really quite small, statistically; and
>>
>> 2. Is offset by a purported increased skill requirement to "account for"
>the
>> chance element.
>>
>> Bah. I've yet to see a design that lived up to either claim. Of course,
>Bob,
>> I haven't yet played PK :)
>>
>
>in a real battle there are a lot of unforseen events/variables. And one of
>those is just how effective a unit will be in combat. Besides the "track
>record" of the unit in previous battles, I believe a good commander can get
>a "feeling" on how a unit of men (or subordinate commander) will do on a
>given day. It's those little things we pick up at a subconcious level that
>"something's not quite right" or "there's an excitement in the air". The
>metal figures and the plastic dice give off no intuitive signals - we
cannot
>"feel" that the next die roll will be a "6" or the next card drawn will be
a
>"Reload" (although I suppose we could "count cards"). All methods to
>simulate plans gone awry (activation dies rolls, PK's card drawing, etc..)
>are artificial and "feel" artificial - I don't feel like I'm dealing with
>masses of human warriors, I feel like I'm betting on probability algorithm.
Exactly! A very astute point. These systems all "feel" wrong and artificial
to me. They "feel" much more wrong than the typical predictable, sequential
turn systems.
Subjective? Yes -- but that was the point of my rant. There is not inherent
moral, intellectual, or entertainment superiority in systems that frustrate
the players.
>("...get your friends to be your subordinate commanders and play
>multi-player games. I have never been in a multi-player game where
everybody
>did exactly what their commander told them to do and what they're teammates
>expected them to do. You don't need rules to duplicate unclear or
>misunderstood orders. Just put another human in the loop. Your orders will
>be unclear. Other players will misunderstand them."
And those, interestingly enough are my absolute favorite types of game.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>Ty Beard wrote:
>
>> And, by definition, it will devalue their skill. In a competent game
design,
has
>> no random elements (Chess), skill is virtually 100% of the equation
>> (ignoring psychology, etc.). As the randomness increases, the importance
of
>> skill is devalued.
>
and
>> decrease the win total for skillful players.
>
>how they are used in a game. In most games, you throw so many dice,
>that the results are averaged out due to the law of large numbers.
>However, they do affect micro-events. But a game is made up of a whole
>series of these micro-events, such that the gamer with the better skill
>will still prevail. The skill now includes to take into account the
>probabilistic elements of the game. But it is still skill.
You assume a fact not in my hypothetical -- that sufficient "skill
requirements" are added to the game to offset the chance factors. A claim
made by many designers -- and totally unfounded in my experience.
Let's say that you are a much more skillful game player, strategist, etc.,
than I. Due to your skill, you win 90% of all games with me. I create a new
game and call it "heads or tails". Guess what? I'll win 50% of tye games on
the average -- 5 times my normal amount against you. Your skill has been
nullified.
>What is important though, is that players know what the probabilistic
>factors are supposed to represent or simulate. Players who have a
>problem
>with drawing cards in Piquet often have no clue what the card-drawing
>mechanism represent. Often, game designers explain insufficiently what
>they are trying to model.
Oh, I don't think that wargamers are that dim-witted. Certainly, my friend
who dislike PK are very astute people. I think they just don't enjoy it.
--Ty Beard
Phil Dutre
rjo...@rmi.net wrote:
>
> In article <37CF3166...@graphics.cornell.edu>, Phil says...
> >
> <<snip[>>
> >What is important though, is that players know what the probabilistic
> >factors are supposed to represent or simulate. Players who have a
> >problem
> >with drawing cards in Piquet often have no clue what the card-drawing
> >mechanism represent. Often, game designers explain insufficiently what
> >they are trying to model.
> >
> >Phil
>
> BJ: Phil, with all due respect, Piquet has a complete article on the theory on
> our main site, and over 100 articles on the mechanics on Magweb.
Bob,
Sorry if my comments were misunderstood, but it was not my intent to
say that Piquet didn't explain things. My mistake. Indeed, Piquet is one
of the
systems that fully explains what the ideas behind the systems are.
When I said 'Often, .... ', I was thinking about games in general, not
Piquet in particular. The example about Piquet was to illustrate that
many
players don't have a clue, because they don't understand the underlying
ideas.
I guess I took a short route trying to write down what I wanted to say.
Phil Dutre
Ty Beard wrote:
> Let's say that you are a much more skillful game player, strategist, etc.,
> than I. Due to your skill, you win 90% of all games with me. I create a new
> game and call it "heads or tails". Guess what? I'll win 50% of tye games on
> the average -- 5 times my normal amount against you. Your skill has been
> nullified.
Yes, but most wargames don't work that way. Wargames stack up a whole
series of these little chance events, and as a player, you have a
choice in when what events happens, and how to modify it. Granted,
a single die roll or card draw or whatever in a game has a high
variance, but a whole series of them, lowers the variance considerably.
The skill of the player is used to skew the possible outcomes such
that my average outcome is bigger than your average outcome, while
at the same time trying to keep my variance as low as possible.
Consider the following game: We each throw 100 die-rolls. For each
dieroll, you can decide between two dice: a 6-sided one and a 10-sided
one. Player 1 always picks a die at random, he uses no skill. But
player 2, due to his insight in the game, always picks the the 10-sided
one. The winner is the player with the highest total of 100 die-rolls.
Is there a chance that player 1 will win? Yes, but is very unlikely.
Even if you don't have full control over what die to pick, skill
plays a role. Say player 1 picks a die at random, but player 2 has put
himself in a position that in 60% of the cases, he's able to choose
a die, and in 40% of the cases, he has to pick at random. Player 2
will still win, although player 1 has no a better chance of winning by
luck. But the skill of player 2, by putting himself in the 60% position,
is definitely important. It is obvious to see the equivalents
in wargaming.
But I agree with you, that it is conceivable that a no-skill player
wins from a skilled player with a non-zero probability. In good game
designs, this non-zero probability is low, not 50%.
Ty Beard
>Ty, with no disrespect to you and your Fistful of good, fun games, I
>think you are being too dismissive of Piquet's mechanisms.
Actually, I'm dismissive of Bob's unsupported assertions that lack of
predictability = a good thing. I see no evidence that this is necessarily
true. And in fact I've amassed considerable personal evidence that it is not
so.
I also reject his curious argument that "event driven games" are more
realistic -- when he later admits that games aren't realistic.
>I had one of your earlier incarnations of FFoT and though I didn't play it,
I enjoyed
>reading it and seeing some of your ideas - some of which <koff> <koff>
>found their way into my home grown WWII rules before I abandoned them
>for Crossfire.
Great! I'm flattered. Which ones, by the way?
>I haven't played Piquet yet, though we are going through
>the rules to play for an ACW game later this Fall.
>
>To say the randomness from drawing cards devalues a player's skill I
>think is very wrong.
Actually, I said that randomness *by definition* devalues skill. I think
this is self-evident -- consider Chess versus "heads or tails". Of course,
some randomness is A Good Thing IMHO. I just don't agree that a lot of it
is.
>I would recommend reading the three paragraphs of Rob Wolsky's
>introdcution to CF on the Crossfire website at
>http://www.hitthebeach.com/kovalic/crossfire/faq/tactics.html
>for a good explanation of why "event driven" games such as CF are
>different from sequence games. I think this explanation probably also
>has relevance to Piquet.
But see, *I don't care* why they did it or why these games are different --
and why should you? I only care if the game is *fun*. And I, and others,
don't enjoy games that go out of their way to frustrate the players. I don't
find those designs to be particularly brilliant, nor do I find them to be
particularly desirable, nor do I find them to be particularly "realistic" --
not that this matters. Realism is an absurd will-o-the-wisp that wargamers
use to justify or indict mechanics that they don't like IMHO. But worst of
all I don't find them to be "fun".
The most damning indictment for a game (IMHO) is that it is not fun. Period.
And I see no evidence that indicates that these "event-driven games" are
more fun on the whole than other games. In my experience, they are *less*
fun.
Just my subjective opinion.
>Although neither CF or PK are real life, they do (at least CF does, PK
>does I think, but I'll see in a couple of months) present the players
>with the challenge of how best to procede given circumstances beyond
>their control.
Assuming that they really provide this challenge (I disagree with CF), so
what? If I want to face the challenge of dealing with circumstances beyond
my control, I can go play with my 4 year old. Or handle a divorce case. I
see no innate play value in frustration.
The one boast I'll make about A Fistful of TOWs, is that most people that
I've spoken with say it's *fun*. Not "realistic". Not "challenging in its
command/control systems". Not "innovative and bold".
But "fun". "Intuitive" is another compliment I get a lot. A component of
"fun"? Most complaints are over date -- "why did you rate the Merkava so
well/poor?" (My response is to tell them why, then suggest that they change
the data to suit them if they're still unsatisfied). But the response to the
system is overwhemingly that it's *fun*.
And that's the highest compliment for a game designer -- indeed the only one
that matters to me. I've discarded reams of rules and systems because they
weren't fun. Most were "realistic", and many were innovative. Hell, I
evaluated an "event driven" system for FFT in 1992 -- then threw it out
because I didn't think it would be *fun*. Usually when I design a new game,
the event-driven concept is considered. But I reject it if I don't think the
players will enjoy it.
Whew!
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
<19990903095747...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>BJ says:
>The moment you try to do that, you're saying, in effect, "For now, let's
just
>turn a blind eye to 99 percent of the reality and focus on just this
1-percent
>tip of the iceberg."
Excellent analogy! And I agree 100%.
>The resultant simulation may be impressive. But the designer & players
should
>not fool themselves into supposing that the simulation does much more than
>scratch the surface.
Ditto.
>Thus, the way I see it, this whole discussion is a debate over how best to
>simulate the "1-percent tip of the iceberg" in game form. Put in
perspective,
>it almost seems like a moot point, doesn't it?
Yes, it does.
>After some thirty years as a wargamer, I've concluded that the *actual*
games
>of chess and poker do just about as good a job of simulating war as do
wargames
>based on the "metaphor" of poker or chess. The wargames just happen to be
>laden with the kind of "chrome" that appeals to military-history buffs.
The "chrome" being toy soldiers.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
their
>>> skill.
>>
>>And, by definition, it will devalue their skill. In a competent game
design,
>>chance should affect all players equally on the average.
>
>BJ: Though not a direct issue visa vis PK, I must ask why?
"In a game that has no random elements (Chess), skill is virtually 100% of
the equation (ignoring psychology, etc.). As the randomness increases, the
importance of skill is devalued."
>Chance is, in fact, quite UNEQUAL on occasion.
But on the average, the cards or dice should innately favor no one.
>>In a game that has
>>no random elements (Chess), skill is virtually 100% of the equation
>>(ignoring psychology, etc.). As the randomness increases, the importance
of
>>skill is devalued.
>
>BJ: Quite the contrary, The metaphor for Poker is perfect in this regard.
You do understand that Chess is different from Poker? And that I was using
chess in my example. Poker most assuredly has random elements. Where are
those random elements in the rules for Chess?
>Do you truly believe you can beat me in poker? Regardless of the cards
dealt on a
>given evening, I ask you to please call and state your first available open
date
>and the table stakes!
And this is relevant to my point in what way? As an aside, I tend to play
poker slightly better than my buddies. My winnings are a little higher in
total than theirs. And I note that the worst wargamers in our group are
actually decent (though not good) poker players. This kinda supports my
assertion, no?
>>Let's say that you'll win a pure-skill game 80% of the time (because of
your
>>superior skill) and I only win 20% of the time. Now, we randomize certain
>>elements and the net effect is to allow random chance decide the outcome
of
>>50% of the games. See what has happened? You'll win 40% on skill and 25%
on
>>luck -- 65% of the games. I'll win 35% -- a 75% increase in my number of
>>victories.
>
>BJ: TY, do you REALLY think that Napoleon won, Wellington won, solely
because
>there was NO chance in their endeavors? I suggest that they handled the
>variables BETTER.
No I don't. All I suggest is that I enjoy games with a fair amount of
predictability -- i.e. that require more skill. And I see no inherent
advantage (to me) in making games less predictable.
>The biggest lie in wargames is NOT about realism, but around
>the fact that skill is found in controlling the constants, the"givens",
better
>than the other guy, when in history the victory went to those that dealt
with
>variables better!
Yet you used the "realism" or "unhistorical" argument to justify
unpredictable systems in PK. Make up your mind -- you can't have it both
ways. You also imply a fact not in evidence -- that dealing with variables
is a skill. What if it's an unlearnable talent? Is it reasonable to design
games that allow people with this talent an overwhelming advantage?
>>A game with more chance will increase the win total for mediocre players
and
>>decrease the win total for skillful players.
>
>BJ: Bullshit!
Colorful, but with a minimal content of useful analysis :)
>The more one is required to deal with the proper management of a
>system that requires more subtle and indirect strategies, that includes the
>management of 'shit happens' the closer one is to the issues of the
battlefield.
Ah, my predicted "randomness actually *adds* skill to the game" assertion.
An assertiuon that has never been demonstrated to my satisfaction in other
games. Heck, Yahtzee is a high-skill game then, right? After all, you have
to manage probablilities there too. Wait a second -- in *any* game with
random chance, you have to manage variables. So I guess that increased
randomness nets out any loss of skill because it takes skill to handle the
increased randomness. Bah!
>You, sir, are a fan of the 'test-tube' experiment-the 'perfect' situation.
Nope. If I were, I'd play chess. But there are a lot of dice rolled in A
Fistful of TOWs or High Seas Drifter. I just reject the notion that making a
game less predictable is inherently desirable.
I also notice from mere personal observation of my 15 year old wargame club
that the sorrier players do better in games that are unpredictable. My guess
is that this will hold true if we ever play PK... Of course, we could be
more odd than typical wargamers (yikes).
>Most algorithims in wargames are absurdly SIMPLE! Too simple!
Because we have to *play* the game. And this from someone who uses a deck of
cards in his game.
>>Of course, every designer of "high chance" systems insists that the chance
>>element:
>>
>>1. Is really quite small, statistically; and
>>
>>2. Is offset by a purported increased skill requirement to "account for"
the
>>chance element.
>>
>>Bah. I've yet to see a design that lived up to either claim. Of course,
Bob,
>>I haven't yet played PK :)
>
>BJ: Yah, we know!
Miracles happen Bob. And I am a hopeless optimist :)
>>As stated in a different thread, I play to win. Winning is my goal and I
>>hate losing. Therefore, I tend to like more predictable games because they
>>optimize the effect of superior skill, IMHO.
>
>BJ: That can be a good game, but it has less to do with any considerations
of
>wargames than a love of obvious mechanics.
Incorrect. In my club, I usually win a little more than I lose. And since
winning is important to me, I like systems that reward skillful play. I
delude myself into believing that's why I win more than I lose. Therefore, I
quite naturally like systems that require a high degree of skill versus
luck. And I haven't yet found a variable-sequence game that doesn't unduly
reward good luck. Of course, I haven't yet played PK. It could be the Holy
Grail.
>>> Tedious game! Bad history! The examples of commanders of small forces
or
>>large
>>> that found their well laid plans frustrated by a subordinate's delay,
>>> misunderstanding, or perfidity, as well has Mala Fortuna, are so legion
as
>>to be
>>> COMMON in battle reports.
>>
>>Forgive me Bob, but this is pure drivel.
>
>BJ: Sorry, Ty, but you find me the account of ANY battle that has no
curious
>event, or even multiples of such events, and I'll buy the beer!
I should have clarified. It is pure drivel as a justification for
artificial, unpredictable mechanics.
>>The notion that a wargame has any meaningful resemblance to real warfare
is
>>absurd. Monopoly is a *better* simulation of real estate trading than PK
(or
>>A Fistful of TOWs) is of real war. Period.
>
>BJ: No one has claimed reality-just that if you want to illustrate war as a
>simple game of chess, I think my approach is closer to the mark.
Is it? I don't recall Robert E. Lee worrying too much that his army would
unpredictably stop in the middle of a battle, and sit there while the
Yankees moved. That does happen in PK, no?
>>A sequential game is unrealistic -- whether the sequences are predictable
or
>>not. So the use of randomizers are a band-aid on a gaping wound. For
>>realism, simultaneous pre-plotted movement is the only "realistic" option.
>>Too bad it really sucks in play...
>
>BJ: PK is non-sequential in terms of event progression.
So what? It's still non-sequential and *by definition* a grotesque
distortion of reality. Unpredictability notwithstanding.
>Pre-plotted moves and
>troops held off the table are right up there with messenger figures
galumphing
>across the table as literalist-lame-obvious-and uninspired answers to the
>problem.
But far more "realistic". You see, you want it both ways. You want to claim
that your game is "realistic" yet distorted in a good way. Bah!
You game may be a lot of *fun*. I suspect that it is because it is played by
a number of people. Brag about it for that reason and that reason alone. All
this other pseudo-intellectual babble is irrelevant. Who gives a tinker's
damn about "event progression" and all that other crap? Who, in their right
mind, would actually think that "realism" -- any meaningful way is
attainable in wargames. All I try to get out of a wargame is a game
that is "fun" and lets me "play general".
>>What about the unlimited omniscience? The only "realistic" way to play a
>>wargame is a double-blind refereed miniature game. Anything else is
>>*hopelessly* unrealistic.
>
>BJ: Double blind is another obvious,lame, and uninventive answer. NO ONE
would
>willingly choose this course except the most stunted imaginations.
Or unless they were actually concerned wth realism. And this would be FAR
more realistic and a far better simulation of command/control and
uncertainty, wouldn't it? I take it, therefore, that your
posturing about the realism of uncertainty is just posturing?
>>I could go on, but my point is clear. Wargames have so many compromises
that
>>they bear no resemblance to real war. My wargaming friends who are combat
>>veterans assure me that playing Charlie Company is nothing like the battle
>>of Hue...
>>
>BJ: NO kidding! Since I served in Operation Marketime in Vietnam-I noticed
the
>difference too!
Then stop trying to justify your mechanics on the grounds of realism.
>>Therefore, I find this silly *cult of frustration* annoying. Designers
>>running about congratulating themselves on how brilliantly they frustrate
>>the players of their games. As if this was something to be proud of. And
as
>>if it was particularly hard to do. Bah! Like all silly fads, this one
shall
>>pass, I suppose.
>
>BJ: Have you ever managed anything other than yourself? The key to
mangement is
>leadership, overcoming 'friction', dealing with change and chance, and
finding
>solutions that are less obvious than roll a 5 or 6!
And they're less obvious than simply coming up with ways to frustrate the
players of your games.
Hmmn. I just don't recall Robert E. Lee worrying about his turn ending
suddenly because
he drew a bad card.
>Ty, this is not a fad, but a new perspective on design that a half- dozen
>designers 'get' and will substantially change the nature of how wargames
are
>played.
Well, we'll see. I think it's a fad -- and like preplotted movement and
those
awful "combat as a function of movement" systems by SPI, they will remain in
the minority. But while you're congratulating yourself on the brilliance of
your
allegedly innovative systems, remember three things:
1. Playing cards are as old as mankind;
2. You've produced no evidence that innovative mechanics are inherently
superior to tried and true
mechanics; and
3. The object of any game really is "to have fun" -- however the individual
defines that term.
>>For all of you geniuses who take such delight in frustrating players --
the
>>point is to enjoy the *game*. Because all the self-congratulatory drivel
>>won't obscure the fact that no wargame is even remotely realistic.
>
>BJ: One can not hope for realism,
Glad we agree.
>but at least one can seek a game that touches
>on real issues of war and command, and requires a subtler solution than the
>arcane designs that ask so little of of the gamer!
Assumes facts not in evidence. Simple, dogmatic assertions aren't facts --
no matter how often you assert them. And where is that historical record
that shows Robert E. Lee wrestling with the "real issues" of war and command
like worrying that his turn would end too soon if he drew a bad card?
--Ty Beard
Tim
out below:
Ty Beard wrote, in part, in response to some of my comments:
> But see, *I don't care* why they did it or why these games are different --
> and why should you? I only care if the game is *fun*. And I, and
##snip##
> The most damning indictment for a game (IMHO) is that it is not fun. Period.
Yup, that's it. If you find a game not enjoyable, whether it's because
of the way the sequence is or lack thereof, or too much randomness for
your preference, etc, the ultimate test of a game is that you like it or
not.
> And I see no evidence that indicates that these "event-driven games" are
> more fun on the whole than other games. In my experience, they are *less*
> fun.
>
> Just my subjective opinion.
See my comments above. Event driven games appeal to some of us, to
others they don't. Crossfire has been immensely appealling to me and
our crowd waaaaay out East here. 8) Others on this newsgroup for whom
I have a great deal of respect simply hate it. The same goes for Piquet
(well, at least in then concept of extreme views on the game...)
The one thing I will say, again about Crossfire is that it gives me a
much better feel for what is going on. I find it an amazingly fast
playing game, another attribute which makes it favourable to our group's
tastes.
> >Although neither CF or PK are real life, they do (at least CF does, PK
> >does I think, but I'll see in a couple of months) present the players
> >with the challenge of how best to procede given circumstances beyond
> >their control.
>
> Assuming that they really provide this challenge (I disagree with CF),
I don't mean so much as randomizing sequence, but the uncertainty of
knowing when your initiative is going to end (or in many cases, if you
have a difficult situation, you know as soon as you move a certain squad
all hell will open up on them and you are sure to lose initiative)
challenges you to do as much as you can before you switch. Thus you
have to think about how you are going to perform the activities you hope
will be successful (maybe I should move up my reserves a bit closer in
case the enemy breaks through this position here and there's nothing to
stop them, etc).
> so what? If I want to face the challenge of dealing with circumstances beyond
> my control, I can go play with my 4 year old. Or handle a divorce case. I
> see no innate play value in frustration.
Again, see my comments above on what ever pulls yer crank! 8) Your
definition of game imposed frustration is frustrating to some (yourself
included) while to others like me, it's not frustrating, I guess. 8)
> >I had one of your earlier incarnations of FFoT and though I didn't play it,
> I enjoyed
> >reading it and seeing some of your ideas - some of which <koff> <koff>
> >found their way into my home grown WWII rules before I abandoned them
> >for Crossfire.
>
> Great! I'm flattered. Which ones, by the way?
Geez, I cannot remember except that there were two interesting things
that had to do with movement and (possibly?) crossing different terrain.
The other day, my son was talking about introdiucing one of his D&D
friends to wargaming. I thought Crossfire would be a bit too abstarct
and tried to resurrect my home grown rules. Not only can I no find the
darn things, I found I could not even remember the turn sequence I had
set up and had been very proud of...
--
Tim - http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^*~,_,~*^
,~*^#^*~, ^*~,_,~*^ "Stay away from Earth, freak!" - Babylon 5
,~*^#^*~, (anonymous bad guy to weird alien)
rjo...@rmi.net
<<snip>>
>
>How many of those out there have in fact been in the command structure at
>Brigade or
>higher level?
>
>It is a military term - FUBAR.
>
>DAW
BJ: I hesitate to make the following remarks, but do so as an intellectual
query, not as any implied criticism or denigration of any group.
It appears to me that a gamer and/or designer will let his life experiences (or
lack thereof) heavily influence what, to him, constitutes a good game.
I believe the majority of wargamers at the present time have no direct
experience with the military, combat, or war. What experience they do have of
such things are from reading history books, and,very rarely, from listening to
the accounts of an elder relative(And rarer every day!)
The historian's view of battle is that of a Monday Morning Quarterback, it has
the advantage of considered clarity, multiple viewpoints over an extended period
of time, and it often lends a false aura of inevitability to the way events
during battle unfold. Things seem quite rational and sequential to the reader
of the book, and that transfers to his perception of battle and war. This group
generally credits the military with far more orderly Command and Control than
people that have actually been there.
They are attracted to rules which replicate the history book's retelling of
battle-and are blind to the nature of battle as it is actually experienced.
Their wargames are orderly, highly structured, possess few 'unknowns', and often
have the stately and measured pace of a doctoral disertation. Since they only
know war from the pages of their books this 'retelling' in such a game matches
their perceptions perfectly!
There are two other smaller groups of wargamers who do have experience of the
military and, sometimes, combat. The larger of the two is non-coms, past and
present, represented by sergeants, chiefs, and warrant officers. This group's
experiences and training is in small unit leadership and tactics. They have
experienced the military life and have a firm understanding of the need for
control and order, but are equally familiar with the chaotic nature of combat
and the ongoing friction of both movement and combat action.
This group generally believes that victory comes from imposing order on this
threatening chaos ("Check that rifle sling, Smith!"; "Johnson, just where do you
think you're going?"; "Green, get your sorry ass, up behind that wall!") and at
their level of combat they're absolutely right! But should we be surprised that
this group would be attracted to detailed rules, but would expect a certain
degree of chaos, that they would then 'overcome'. It should not surprise us if
they were great fans of skirmish level games-and minor tactics.
The smallest group, by far, would be past or present officers. This group would
be, by experience and training, the most familiar with the 'big' picture, the
more abstract levels of war, and the chaotic and unpredictable nature of war.
Their job is to solve these problems. They must manage the chaos above them in
the chain of command, execute these orders in the midst of the whirlwind of
battle around them or to their front, and communicate effectively through their
leadership and example with the men in their command. They know their
mission/orders and must manage the 'friction' of battle that frustrates the
achievement of those orders. They don't impose order as much as
manage-solve-and channel the actions of their command as they guess the
intentions of the enemy, allow for the terrain being rougher than upper
command's maps showed, make sure their best unit is at the point, keep a reserve
in hand just in case the 'unexpected' happens(and it will). This group would be
attracted to a game with high degrees of chaos/unknowns and required problem
solving of a more subtle nature. Abstraction would be a more comfortable
environment for them because they 'live' there in performing their 'job'.
This does not mean that any one approach is right or wrong, nor that exceptions
are not plentiful, but it does pose the question-Is percieved 'realism' and
design acceptability a function of our life experiences, career focus, and what
part of the problem we are most familiar with?
BJ
Ty Beard
>Ty Beard wrote:
>> Let's say that you are a much more skillful game player, strategist,
etc.,
>> than I. Due to your skill, you win 90% of all games with me. I create a
new
>> game and call it "heads or tails". Guess what? I'll win 50% of tye games
on
>> the average -- 5 times my normal amount against you. Your skill has been
>> nullified.
>Yes, but most wargames don't work that way.
True, but the example was to demonstrate that an increase in random chance
will reduce the value of skill.
>Wargames stack up a whole
>series of these little chance events, and as a player, you have a
>choice in when what events happens, and how to modify it. Granted,
>a single die roll or card draw or whatever in a game has a high
>variance, but a whole series of them, lowers the variance considerably.
Not necessarily. What if I design a game that features a lot of die rolling
in the combat system. Theoretically, this lowers the variance. But what if
there's a rule that says "if you roll doubles, you may fire a nuclear weapon
at your opponent." In that case, the first player that rolls doubles is very
likely to win. And the game has a great deal of variance -- and becomes
almost wholly dependent on luck. This is an extreme example of course.
What about a medieval wargame in which your turn could at any time after a
unit moves. You launch a massive attack -- then your turn ends suddenly
after about 1/3 of your force has moved. Your army is frozen inplace and you
enemy gets a series of moves that allow him to flank you and destroy your
army.
Did your opponent really exercise any real skill? Or did he just exploit an
opportunity that the cards *gave* him? I don't enjoy a game that would allow
this to happen. In such a game, the most important determinant of victory
might well be how the cards are shuffled.
>The skill of the player is used to skew the possible outcomes such
>that my average outcome is bigger than your average outcome, while
>at the same time trying to keep my variance as low as possible.
That's the typical claim of the folks who like unpredictable sequences of
play -- i.e., that there's a skill increase necessary to "manage" the
randomness and unpredictability. My problem is that I don't find this
convincing. It has been my experience that mediocre players do better in
games that have more "randomness" and "unpredictability" -- which is
consistent with my thesis.
>Consider the following game: We each throw 100 die-rolls. For each
>dieroll, you can decide between two dice: a 6-sided one and a 10-sided
>one. Player 1 always picks a die at random, he uses no skill. But
>player 2, due to his insight in the game, always picks the the 10-sided
>one. The winner is the player with the highest total of 100 die-rolls.
>Is there a chance that player 1 will win? Yes, but is very unlikely.
I don't get the point. This game actually rewards skill -- i.e., being sharp
enough to roll the d10. And the large number of *equally* important die
rolls minimizes variance. But in a wargame, a given turn can be far more
important than the other turns. The game can be won or lost in that turn. So
an unpredictable turn sequence just increases the role of luck *at the
critical moment*. That's just not the case with the dice game. Each turn has
the exact same significance as the other.
And that's why I especially dislike games with unpredictable turn sequences.
>But I agree with you, that it is conceivable that a no-skill player
>wins from a skilled player with a non-zero probability. In good game
>designs, this non-zero probability is low, not 50%.
Oh sure, I'd agree. Even if PK *is* my worst nightmare of a doodad-laden,
luck driven, unintuitive system, I'll bet that the good players in our club
will beat the bad players in our club more often than not. And I'd even bet
that the bad player will tend to like the game more than the good players. I
wonder why?
I just don't like losing a game to bad luck. It cheats me out of a victory
and it cheapens my opponent's victory. Therefore, I want luck to have the
role that you described in your example: a large number of individually
insignificant die rolls. I don't want something as important as the length
of a game turn to depend on roll of a die or the draw of a card. That gives
luck, not skill, the most important role, IMHO.
--Ty Beard
ToySldr
>unpredictably stop in the middle of a battle, and sit there while the
>Yankees moved. That does happen in PK, no?
>
JG: An article in the latest issue of Military History Quarterly on the Gulf
War describes how the 1st Infantry Division was stopped to allow some
realignment and never again given an order to move forward because the chief of
staff simply forgot about it. Would you call that an "unpredictable stop"? It
wouldn't happen in any fixed sequence wargame that I ever played, yet it did
happen in reality.
>Hmmn. I just don't recall Robert E. Lee worrying about his turn ending or
>drawing a bad card.
JG: But he did worry about A.P. Hill getting from Harpers Ferry to Sharpsburg
in time. Again, with fixed move rates and fixed turn sequences that is not much
of a worry.
>Assumes facts not in evidence. Simple, dogmatic assertions aren't facts --
>no matter how often you assert them. And where is that historical record
>that shows Robert E. Lee wrestling with the "real issues" of war and command
>like worrying that his turn would end too soon if he drew a bad card?
>
JG: You are arguing about the cause not the effect. Gamers use different
"causes" than real world commanders in an attempt to achieve analogous
"effects" to the real world. Uncertaintly is a fact of real world warfare.
Uncertainty in many wargaming systems is minimal. I prefer a gaming environment
that provides greater rather than lesser uncertaintly because it challenges my
"skill" in planning for the unknown, both of my opponent and of "fate." This is
not to say that "classic" wargames do not require skill, but it is of a
different type; likewise, you can not say that increasing the uncertainty
reduces the impact of skill. If that were true, Warren Buffet and I would have
the same success in the stock market and I can tell you that that is most
assuredly NOT the case! A skillful chess player and a skillful poker player are
equally skilled, but skilled in the terms of their chosen game. Which of these
games is more analogous to command in combat is a personal preference.
Jim
Ty Beard
>It appears to me that a gamer and/or designer will let his life experiences
(or
>lack thereof) heavily influence what, to him, constitutes a good game.
>The historian's view of battle is that of a Monday Morning Quarterback, it
has
>the advantage of considered clarity, multiple viewpoints over an extended
period
>of time, and it often lends a false aura of inevitability to the way events
>during battle unfold. Things seem quite rational and sequential to the
reader
>of the book, and that transfers to his perception of battle and war. This
group
>generally credits the military with far more orderly Command and Control
than
>people that have actually been there.
No, Bob. Only an idiot believes that war is "rational and sequential". Most
wargamers in my experience are not idiots. Many of us hold doctorate
degrees. Many of us are military veteran -- some are even combat veterans.
You're trying to duck my essential point, so I'll state it again as clearly
as I can:
UNPREDICTABLE GAMES AREN'T INHERENTLY SUPERIOR TO MORE PREDICTABLE GAMES.
This has nothing to do with life experiences or intelligence -- and your
attempt to shift the debate in that direction is disengenuous at best.
Besides, my best friend is a Vietnam *Combat* veteran -- and the most
successful wargamer I know. He despises the Cult of Frustration as much as I
do.
It's a matter of preference -- not experience, IQ wealth or height. I don't
agree with you because I find your arguments unpersuasive. Those other
factors are irrelevant.
>Is percieved ...design acceptability a function of our life experiences,
career focus, and what
>part of the problem we are most familiar with?
Isn't everything?
And your transparent attempt to imply that "the more experienced people like
my ideas more" fails to persuade. Though it does annoy.
You're gonna have to do better than "I'm smarter than you", Bob. And you're
gonna have to do *much* better than "smart, experienced, insightful people
agree with me." I suggest that you start by actually responding to the
counter-arguments that have been posted.
Boy, I wish my courtroom opponents were this bad. I'd have that Carribean
island by now.
--Ty Beard
Patrick Carroll
> It is interesting that Peter Young, Don Featherstone, and other
>> people that have actually experienced combat are far more attracted to
>simple
It's also interesting that prior to this age of automation & computerization,
the wargames actually used at war colleges generally did *not* include any
random factors.
IIRC from Peter Perla's history of wargaming, one of the early ones was a
Prussian game in which all movements & combat results were adjudicated by an
expert: an officer who presumably had enough know-how to "just see" what would
happen on a real battlefield under similar circumstances.
H.G. Welles' "Little Wars" was clearly an effort to bring wargaming to the
civilian world. But even there, the designer/author consciously rejects dice
and other such randomizers: he says that in a wargame, something ought to
really happen, not just be *said* to have happened (based on a throw of the
dice). Thus his little spring-loaded cannons.
Sometime in the 20th century, dice began to be acceptable. But I know from
personal experience that even now there's more than a little suspicion about
the practice (as this thread reinforces). It was also in the mid 20th century
that wargame designers started trying to devise comprehensive rules that would
cover every possible contingency--thus trying, in effect, to turn war into an
algorithm.
I wonder what Sun Tzu, Hannibal, Frederick, or Patton would say about such
attempts. . . .
Thomas H. Leete
> >BJ: No one has claimed reality-just that if you want to illustrate war as a
> >simple game of chess, I think my approach is closer to the mark.
>
> Is it? I don't recall Robert E. Lee worrying too much that his army would
> unpredictably stop in the middle of a battle, and sit there while the
> Yankees moved. That does happen in PK, no?
Well, that's exactly what happened to him during the Seven Days (Jackson
takes a nap) and Gettysburg (Ewell delays the attack at Cemetery Hill,
allowing Meade to reinforce LRT). IIRC, Bobby spent a lot of time and
effort on both occasions sending messages to each commander telling them
to get their collective butts moving, which sounds like he was worrying
to me. And these are just the first two examples that come to mind...
So the answer to your question is: yes, that happens in PK.
Tom
Thomas H. Leete
> All
> this other pseudo-intellectual babble is irrelevant. Who gives a tinker's
> damn about "event progression" and all that other crap? Who, in their right
> mind, would actually think that "realism" -- any meaningful way is
> attainable in wargames. All I try to get out of a wargame is a game
> that is "fun" and lets me "play general".
But that's the point: which type of game allows us to 'play general' in
a way that's closer to what it's really like to _be_ a general? I wanna
play general, too. But I have to ask: am I playing 'general' or 'god'?
Tom
rjo...@rmi.net
>
<<snip of much where Ty and I seem to be talking past each other>>
>And this is relevant to my point in what way? As an aside, I tend to play
>poker slightly better than my buddies. My winnings are a little higher in
>total than theirs. And I note that the worst wargamers in our group are
>actually decent (though not good) poker players. This kinda supports my
>assertion, no?
BJ: No-it might just point out that your wargame rules don't ask for the same
skills as poker. If one then accepts Poker as an acceptable metahphor/model for
battle-then it could lead one to say that your wargame rules are asking for the
wrong skills from your commanders...
<<snip>>
>
>>The biggest lie in wargames is NOT about realism, but around
>>the fact that skill is found in controlling the constants, the"givens",
>better
>>than the other guy, when in history the victory went to those that dealt
>with
>>variables better!
>
>Yet you used the "realism" or "unhistorical" argument to justify
>unpredictable systems in PK. Make up your mind -- you can't have it both
>ways. You also imply a fact not in evidence -- that dealing with variables
>is a skill. What if it's an unlearnable talent? Is it reasonable to design
>games that allow people with this talent an overwhelming advantage?
BJ: If one accepts that managing variables was a skill of commanders, and like
most skills, some may have a greater talent at it than others. In chess, I
would hate to face Gary Kasparov; In poker, I wouldn't last too long at the
World Championships in Las Vegas; and in war there are certain talents, and I
would maintain that this ability to manage variables, make decisions on
fragmentary evidence, and create solutions to ever changing problems was a skill
that seperated Lee and George Thomas from,say, Burnside or Joe Johnston.
I hope I have repeated often enough that I am just as skeptical about 'realism'
as you are, HOWEVER, one may try to capture some of the nature of combat, pose
challenges that at least illustrate in a very gross way the problems faced by
commanders in a given period, and one can say that one set is closer to some
truths than other rules. Sets may have different focii as determined by the
designer that will appeal to different groups.
The SINGLE most artificial rule structure I can think of is the fixed sequence
wargame and the resultant design tenets that flow from its acceptance.
>
<<snip>>
>Is it? I don't recall Robert E. Lee worrying too much that his army would
>unpredictably stop in the middle of a battle, and sit there while the
>Yankees moved. That does happen in PK, no?
>
BJ: No, no more than units 'halt' after moving within their phase in a fixed
sequence. All PK does is stop the micromanagement of movement and combat found
is many other games. In effect, you cannot control the "rate" of movement, nor
will units automatically race around at maximum speed! All you can see is the
units are not where you imagined they would be! Rather like Robert E. Lee
wondering why Pickett's charge was several hours late, or being angry with Hill
for not moving onto Cemetary ridge at the end of the first day as Lee felt he
SHOULD have!
There are many articles on Magweb that address this whole issue. That statement
above can only be made by someone who is fairly unfamiliar with the rules and
totally unaware of the theory of the design.
Lee certainly didn't move by first moving all his infantry, then cavalry, then
horse, and only then firing, either!
<<snip>>
>Hmmn. I just don't recall Robert E. Lee worrying about his turn ending
>suddenly because
>he drew a bad card.
BJ: Ty, you are trying the reducto ad absurdum approach-but, of course, Lee
never played wargames, never followed a fixed sequence, never used a hand
calculator to determine losses, never rolled a die to determine if he took
Little Round Top, never counted the exact number of troops in Chamberlain's
command, and would have been most surprised to know that battles had 'turns' at
all!
You again confuse(willingly) the tool with the end product-the medium with the
message.
>
>>Ty, this is not a fad, but a new perspective on design that a half- dozen
>>designers 'get' and will substantially change the nature of how wargames
>are
>>played.
>
>Well, we'll see. I think it's a fad -- and like preplotted movement and
>those
>awful "combat as a function of movement" systems by SPI, they will remain in
>the minority. But while you're congratulating yourself on the brilliance of
>your
>allegedly innovative systems, remember three things:
>
>1. Playing cards are as old as mankind;
>2. You've produced no evidence that innovative mechanics are inherently
>superior to tried and true
>mechanics; and
>3. The object of any game really is "to have fun" -- however the individual
>defines that term.
BJ: 1. The tools have no bearing on the 'innovation' of a design.
2. There can be no evidence(boy, does your language reflect your work!!) as the
final determination is aesthetic and subjective, BUT if innovation leads to new
perceptions and treatments and attracts new adherents, then it fulfills a need
that the old "tried and true" weren't serving!
3. Yes, indeed, and 'fun' is VERY subjective-as any sado-masochist demonstrates!
>
BJ
Ty Beard
>Ty Beard wrote:
>
>> >BJ: No one has claimed reality-just that if you want to illustrate war
as a
>> >simple game of chess, I think my approach is closer to the mark.
>>
>> Is it? I don't recall Robert E. Lee worrying too much that his army would
>> unpredictably stop in the middle of a battle, and sit there while the
>> Yankees moved. That does happen in PK, no?
>
>takes a nap) and Gettysburg (Ewell delays the attack at Cemetery Hill,
>allowing Meade to reinforce LRT).
The entire reb army magically stopped in the middle of the battle and let
the yankees maneuver? The rebs never moved at the same time as the yankees?
Well no wonder the yankees won.
>IIRC, Bobby spent a lot of time and
>effort on both occasions sending messages to each commander telling them
>to get their collective butts moving, which sounds like he was worrying
>to me. And these are just the first two examples that come to mind...
I must have missed the card drawing part. And I don't recall the rebs
magically freezing in the middle of an attack...
Of course, a predictable sequence of play can easily cover these situations.
In multiplayer games, especially. Or with unit activation rolls -- a more
finely tailored solution IMHO.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>JG: An article in the latest issue of Military History Quarterly on the
Gulf
>War describes how the 1st Infantry Division was stopped to allow some
>realignment and never again given an order to move forward because the
chief of
>staff simply forgot about it. Would you call that an "unpredictable stop"?
It
>wouldn't happen in any fixed sequence wargame that I ever played, yet it
did
>happen in reality.
What is so implausible about a player forgetting to move the unit? Happens
all the time in games that I've played. What about the player running out of
time -- all of my wargames are timed. What if the unit failed an activation
roll. What if the designer factored it in some other way?
>>Hmmn. I just don't recall Robert E. Lee worrying about his turn ending or
>>drawing a bad card.
>
>JG: But he did worry about A.P. Hill getting from Harpers Ferry to
Sharpsburg
>in time. Again, with fixed move rates and fixed turn sequences that is not
much
>of a worry.
Why? What if the player simply forgets to move AP Hill. What if the system
requires an activation roll? What if stands move a variable distance? These
systems often appear in "fixed sequence" games.
>JG: You are arguing about the cause not the effect. Gamers use different
>"causes" than real world commanders in an attempt to achieve analogous
>"effects" to the real world.
>Uncertaintly is a fact of real world warfare.
As I grow tired of asking, SO WHAT?
Wargames have very little to do with *real warfare*. Why not just go to
preplotted simultaneous movement and double blind games. After all, that's
far more realistic than any sequential system -- fixed or variable. For that
matter, shouldn't the commander only be allowed to view a map and receive
reports from a gamemaster about his units' position. And what's up with
this perfect knowledge of your units' capabilities? And how about that
ability to freeze time and ponder? Et cetera.
Bob's hamhanded attempts to define PK as the point at which any further
attempts to increase realism are not worth the effort are a transparent (and
pathetic) attempt to stroke his own ego.
And quite likely unnecessary to boot. A lot of people do apparently enjoy PK
and find it fun. That's the highest praise a designer can get. But his
tiresome game of "ain't I wonderful" has exhausted my last bit of patience.
If you think uncertaintly is *fun* then great. Play games that are
unpredictable. Just don't assume a "superior" attitude because you like
unpredictable games. Don't delude yourself (as Bob apparently does) that
you're just so much more smarter and more insightful than those moronic
control-freaks who like sequential games. It just ain't so.
As I've said before, I have ample opportunities to experience frustration,
unpredictability and lack of control in the Real World. I have no desire or
need to do it for a hobby, and I fail to see any advantage in doing so.
And it's not about stupidity -- my test scores and educational credentials
are sufficient to demonstrate that I'm at least of average intelligence.
Virtually all historical gamers that I've ever met are bright. And it's not
about experience, either. Combat veterans that I know personally don't care
for the Cult of Frustration.
It's all about how you define "fun". If you or Bob like unpredictable games,
then more power to you. I don't -- for reasons that I think are valid and
reasonable. And Bob's silly attempts to patronize people who don't care for
his fabulous ideas has just worn thin. Being patronized by a part-time game
designer would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
>Uncertainty in many wargaming systems is minimal. I prefer a gaming
environment
>that provides greater rather than lesser uncertaintly because it challenges
my
>"skill" in planning for the unknown, both of my opponent and of "fate."
I fail to see how a system that significantly rewards card-drawing does
reward "skill". Besides, if I want to play gin rummey, I'll play gin rummey.
But, if you like it, then it's okay with me.
>This is
>not to say that "classic" wargames do not require skill, but it is of a
>different type; likewise, you can not say that increasing the uncertainty
>reduces the impact of skill.
Not only can I say it, but it is logically and mathematically demonstrable.
>If that were true, Warren Buffet and I would have
>the same success in the stock market and I can tell you that that is most
>assuredly NOT the case!
Well, not if the stock market is a very good example of a high skill/low
luck wargame. And I believe it is. Buffet certainly does. Especially if the
goal is to amass wealth.
>A skillful chess player and a skillful poker player are
>equally skilled, but skilled in the terms of their chosen game. Which of
these
>games is more analogous to command in combat is a personal preference.
That has been my point all along.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>The other day, my son was talking about introdiucing one of his D&D
>friends to wargaming. I thought Crossfire would be a bit too abstarct
>and tried to resurrect my home grown rules. Not only can I no find the
>darn things, I found I could not even remember the turn sequence I had
>set up and had been very proud of...
As an aside, I really do think that Crossfire is *very* innovative. I like
most of Conliffe's designs. I've even playtested the "no movement allowance"
concept in FFT. It was interesting and worked well. I just didn't to be
burned as a heretic by the modern gamers. They tend to be *most*
unforgiving... :)
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>Ty Beard wrote:
>
>> All
>> this other pseudo-intellectual babble is irrelevant. Who gives a tinker's
>> damn about "event progression" and all that other crap? Who, in their
right
>> mind, would actually think that "realism" -- any meaningful way is
>> attainable in wargames. All I try to get out of a wargame is a game
>> that is "fun" and lets me "play general".
>
>a way that's closer to what it's really like to _be_ a general? I wanna
>play general, too. But I have to ask: am I playing 'general' or 'god'?
It sounds to me like you're playing gin rummey :)
My answer, by the way, is that *even assuming that variable sequence games*
get closer to being a general:
1. The increased influence of luck outweighs any gain from such systems;
2. Because playing a wargame is so utterly unlike being a real general, the
question is really moot; and
3. Frustration -- a natural side effect of these systems -- is not fun.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
>Bob says:
>> It is interesting that Peter Young, Don Featherstone, and other
>>> people that have actually experienced combat are far more attracted to
>>simple
>>> rules, fog of war, and chance. . . .
>
>It's also interesting that prior to this age of automation &
computerization,
>the wargames actually used at war colleges generally did *not* include any
>random factors.
And appeals to authority (name-dropping) are seldom persuasive. Maybe those
military men weren't as smart as some of the wargame designers out there?
>H.G. Welles' "Little Wars" was clearly an effort to bring wargaming to the
>civilian world. But even there, the designer/author consciously rejects
dice
>and other such randomizers: he says that in a wargame, something ought to
>really happen, not just be *said* to have happened (based on a throw of the
>dice). Thus his little spring-loaded cannons.
>
>Sometime in the 20th century, dice began to be acceptable. But I know from
>personal experience that even now there's more than a little suspicion
about
>the practice (as this thread reinforces). It was also in the mid 20th
century
>that wargame designers started trying to devise comprehensive rules that
would
>cover every possible contingency--thus trying, in effect, to turn war into
an
>algorithm.
>
>I wonder what Sun Tzu, Hannibal, Frederick, or Patton would say about such
>attempts. . . .
My guess is: "You're not serious, are you?"
--Ty Beard
Phil Dutre
Patrick Carroll wrote:
> It's also interesting that prior to this age of automation & computerization,
> the wargames actually used at war colleges generally did *not* include any
> random factors.
Not true. The 1824 version of kriegsspiel (Von Reisswitz) used in
the Prussian military academy used dice to resolve combat.
ToySldr
>time -- all of my wargames are timed. What if the unit failed an activation
>roll.
>What if the system
>requires an activation roll? What if stands move a variable distance?
JG: All of those mechincs sound as if they are probablity based and therefore
entering an element of uncertainty or randomness into the game. So if it is OK
to do it with time, activation rolls, and variable distance moves, why is it
not OK to do it with a card deck?? Seems a bit of a double standard.
>Just don't assume a "superior" attitude because you like
>unpredictable games. Don't delude yourself (as Bob apparently does) that
>you're just so much more smarter and more insightful than those moronic
>control-freaks who like sequential games. It just ain't so.
JG: If you can find somewhere in my message where I assumed a superior
attitude, please forgive me. Having designed and published several very
successful wargames of the "classic school" I assuredly do not have anything
against any of them or those who play them NOR HAVE I EVER STATED THAT. A less
sensitive soul than I would think you were assuming a superior attitude to me
in your message...
>I fail to see how a system that significantly rewards card-drawing does
>reward "skill". Besides, if I want to play gin rummey, I'll play gin rummey.
>But, if you like it, then it's okay with me.
JG: Perhaps you should play it. Piquet rewards planning, creativity and
effective management of available resources - not card draws. Classic wargames
reward good die rolls, but that does not remove the skill from the play of
these games by your own statements. So what is the problem with cards???
>Well, not if the stock market is a very good example of a high skill/low
>luck wargame. And I believe it is. Buffet certainly does. Especially if the
>goal is to amass wealth.
>
JG: Me thinks you confuse luck and uncertainty - they are not the same. Are you
saying that the stock market is an example of a low uncertainty process? Are
you saying that skill has no impact on success in the stock market? I view the
stock market as an example of a high uncertainty, high skill, strategy based
process - kind of like Piquet!
Jim
Jim
Ty Beard
> In article <nIRz3.1081$oG5.37...@news.randori.com>, "Ty says...
> <<snip of much where Ty and I seem to be talking past each other>>
I'm not so sure about that. I understand what you've said and I suspect you
understand what I've said.
> BJ: No-it might just point out that your wargame rules don't ask for the
same
> skills as poker.
Since my point was that increased randomness in a game devalues skill, I
haven't the foggiest idea what this point has to do with the price of putty
in China.
> If one then accepts Poker as an acceptable metahphor/model for
> battle-then it could lead one to say that your wargame rules are asking
for the
> wrong skills from your commanders...
True -- but irrelevant to the context of my original post.
> I hope I have repeated often enough that I am just as skeptical about
'realism'
> as you are, HOWEVER, one may try to capture some of the nature of combat,
pose
> challenges that at least illustrate in a very gross way the problems faced
by
> commanders in a given period, and one can say that one set is closer to
some
> truths than other rules. Sets may have different focii as determined by
the
> designer that will appeal to different groups.
>
> The SINGLE most artificial rule structure I can think of is the fixed
sequence
> wargame and the resultant design tenets that flow from its acceptance.
And I utterly disagree with this last statement and find your supporting
arguments unpersuasive.
I personally find games that take too long to be the SINGLE most artificial
rule structure. Almost as high are rules that fail to impose time limits on
the commanders.
And the point I've been trying to make all along is that variable turn
systems are not inherently superior to fixed length turn systems -- as you
constantly (and annoyingly) assert and insinuate. It's simply a question of
personal taste and I find compelling reasons *not* to use variable turn
length systems.
> >Is it? I don't recall Robert E. Lee worrying too much that his army would
> >unpredictably stop in the middle of a battle, and sit there while the
> >Yankees moved. That does happen in PK, no?
> >
> BJ: No, no more than units 'halt' after moving within their phase in a
fixed
> sequence.
Thanks for making my point. I just happen to prefer one over the other.
> All PK does is stop the micromanagement of movement and combat found
> is many other games.
Even if that's really true, I suspect that the benefit gained does not
outweight the cost -- for my tastes.
> In effect, you cannot control the "rate" of movement, nor
> will units automatically race around at maximum speed!
Well, PK hardly corners the market on addressing this issue. I have several
sequential systems out there in which units simply dice to see how far they
move. Same effect.
> All you can see is the
> units are not where you imagined they would be! Rather like Robert E. Lee
> wondering why Pickett's charge was several hours late, or being angry with
Hill
> for not moving onto Cemetary ridge at the end of the first day as Lee felt
he
> SHOULD have!
And again, hardly unique to PK.
> There are many articles on Magweb that address this whole issue. That
statement
> above can only be made by someone who is fairly unfamiliar with the rules
and
> totally unaware of the theory of the design.
Ah, the "you're too dumb to understand" retort. Very convincing.
Congratulations, you've gotten on my last nerve.
Let *me* try one now.
You apparently aren't smart enough to realize that your precious ideas *ARE
NO BIG DEAL* and are neither brilliant nor insightful. Your vague platitudes
and psychobabble do not constitute intelligence. And you are apparently too
dull to realize that your pathetic attempts at personal ego gratification
have gone unnoticed. Face it. You've created a set of wargame rules. BIG
DEAL.
There. Like it?
If not, then I suggest that you stop insulting the intelligence of people
who disagree with you. Because glass houses are highly vulnerable to stones
cast from within. Oh, and knock that silly patronizing off while you're at
it.
> BJ: Ty, you are trying the reducto ad absurdum approach-but, of course,
Lee
> never played wargames, never followed a fixed sequence, never used a hand
> calculator to determine losses, never rolled a die to determine if he took
> Little Round Top, never counted the exact number of troops in
Chamberlain's
> command, and would have been most surprised to know that battles had
'turns' at
> all!
That was my point.
> You again confuse(willingly) the tool with the end product-the medium with
the
> message.
No I don't. I assert that the tool that you choose is not necessarily the
best tool to achieve the end. And I also reject the notion that confusion
and frustration is the ideal end in wargame design.
> 2. There can be no evidence(boy, does your language reflect your work!!)
as the
> final determination is aesthetic and subjective,
Glad you agree with me.
> BUT if innovation leads to new
> perceptions and treatments and attracts new adherents, then it fulfills a
need
> that the old "tried and true" weren't serving!
True enough and that's fine with me. I only dispute the notion that these
*allegedly* new mechanics are objectively superior to previous ones. As I
said earlier -- if you like unpredictability, then play unpredictable games.
Just don't delude yourself into think that you (or your designs) are smarter
and more insightful than those of us who choose more predictable games.
Because it just ain't so...
Flame, killfile or rationed discourse -- your call.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> >What about the player running out of
> >time -- all of my wargames are timed. What if the unit failed an
activation
> >roll.
> >What if the system
> >requires an activation roll? What if stands move a variable distance?
>
therefore
> entering an element of uncertainty or randomness into the game. So if it
is OK
> to do it with time, activation rolls, and variable distance moves, why is
it
> not OK to do it with a card deck?? Seems a bit of a double standard.
I've never asserted that all randomness is bad. It has a lot to do with the
relative significance of each random event. A turn ending is a BIG DEAL in
most games. An individual unit activation is a much smaller deal. A shot
from a single stand is a smaller deal yet.
In most games that I've played, losing a turn (or having it cut unusually
short) can lose a game -- especially if your opponent gets an unusually long
turn next.
> >Just don't assume a "superior" attitude because you like
> >unpredictable games. Don't delude yourself (as Bob apparently does) that
> >you're just so much more smarter and more insightful than those moronic
> >control-freaks who like sequential games. It just ain't so.
>
> JG: If you can find somewhere in my message where I assumed a superior
> attitude, please forgive me.
Sorry -- I should have specified that I wasn't referring to you
specifically. You've been quite polite.
> Having designed and published several very
> successful wargames of the "classic school" I assuredly do not have
anything
> against any of them or those who play them NOR HAVE I EVER STATED THAT. A
less
> sensitive soul than I would think you were assuming a superior attitude to
me
> in your message...
Nope, just ranting sloppily :)
> >I fail to see how a system that significantly rewards card-drawing does
> >reward "skill". Besides, if I want to play gin rummey, I'll play gin
rummey.
> >But, if you like it, then it's okay with me.
>
> JG: Perhaps you should play it.
This pains me greatly to say, but I think I'm gonna have to after this rant.
Anyone have a used copy for sale? (Just kidding Bob).
> Piquet rewards planning, creativity and
> effective management of available resources - not card draws. Classic
wargames
> reward good die rolls, but that does not remove the skill from the play of
> these games by your own statements. So what is the problem with cards???
Nothing. I love Magic and Poker. I like Sword and the Flame -- though it was
a little close for my tastes. Heck I even have a few ideas for a playing
card only wargame.
My problem is with systems that:
1. Allow "really big deals" to be determined by chance -- like when a turn
ends or how many phases you get in that turn;
2. Causes frustration as an intentional design goal; and
3. Reward luck "too much".
> JG: Me thinks you confuse luck and uncertainty - they are not the same.
No, I think I just missed your point :)
> Are you
> saying that the stock market is an example of a low uncertainty process?
I wish...
> Are you saying that skill has no impact on success in the stock market?
Uh, no.
> I view the
> stock market as an example of a high uncertainty, high skill, strategy
based
> process
Me too.
> - kind of like Piquet!
I'm dubious about the "skill" and "strategy" part. Often promised, seldom
delivered. And I get plenty of uncertainty (and frustration) in the Real
World. I'm skeptical that it's real desirable in my hobby.
--Ty Beard
rjo...@rmi.net
>
<<snip>>
>Boy, I wish my courtroom opponents were this bad. I'd have that Carribean
>island by now.
>
>--Ty Beard
>
>
in response to you old sod! That one responded to an idea that DAW had.
Actually, I don't think your courtroom opponents have much to worry about,
you're too busy writing multiple messages on rmgh to prepare for them! :-)
BJ
PS This is the slowest time in TV land, so I'll save you the obvious response.
ToySldr
>My problem is with systems that:
>
>1. Allow "really big deals" to be determined by chance -- like when a turn
>ends or how many phases you get in that turn;
>
JG: In Piquet, unlike a more rigidly structured game, the end of a turn is NOT
a big deal. In fact, given that you understand the system and have taken the
propoer safe guards in your plan and deployment, the number of phases you get
in a turn is not a big deal. The process is much more subtle than that. Hence
the need for "skill" as I define the term.
>2. Causes frustration as an intentional design goal; and
>
JG: Frustration is not a design goal of Piquet, tension is, anticipation is.
While my plans may be frustrated, I do not find playing the game frustrating. I
find the unending repetition of a fixed sequence to be frustrating, I find 6"
move distances frustrating (which is why in my varient of Piquet there are no
move distances!). But again this is personal choice and preference.
>3. Reward luck "too much".
JG: Luck in Piquet is fickle. It sits on your shoulder as much as the other
guy's. The question usually comes done to who did the better job of planning
and execution. Do "unusual" things happen in Piquet? Yes. Do they happen more
often then in other games? Yes. Do unusual things happen too infrequently in
other games? In my opinion, yes! Again, I don't view this as a matter of luck.
If luck was all there was to Piquet I would never play it because I have
terrible "luck" in wargames. But I do like the challenge of putting my skill as
a planner and decision maker up against a good opponent in a chaotic/uncertain
environment.
Jim
Patrick Carroll
>. . ., I have ample opportunities to experience frustration,
>unpredictability and lack of control in the Real World. I have no desire or
>need to do it for a hobby, and I fail to see any advantage in doing so.
Well, I can think of one advantage, maybe. The joy of wargaming (for myself and
most people I've met) seems to have quite a bit to do with credibility:
suspending your disbelief for the duration of the game and pretending the game
is a real battle (or campaign, or war, or whatever). Some folks have such good
imaginations that they're happy playing chess and picturing it as a real
medieval battle. Others need something at least as "realistic" as DBA. Many
wargamers feel that the more detail there is, the better--but unfortunately,
big or complicated wargames are time-consuming and thus don't get played very
often.
So, if a designer can come up with something a bit different than what has come
along before--especially something that seems to connect with historical
accounts of battles better than many other wargames do--it's likely to help
with the "suspension of disbelief" that makes for a great game experience.
If that's what's happening with PK (and I don't know whether or not it is),
maybe the kindest thing to do is just give it the old "thumbs up," so that
those who consider it realistic (as well as fun, of course) can continue to do
so. Who needs detractors coming along and exposing the shortcomings of their
favorite game (or movie, or novel, or whatever)?
I say that if someone is perfectly happy believing that chess (or poker) is the
best simulation ever of medieval battle, we ought to smile and let him go on
enjoying chess (or poker) in that way.
I kinda like DBA myself. And the last thing I need is someone coming along
telling me how it's really just a stupid rock-scissors-paper type of game and
not a good wargame at all. My response to that is, "Sssshhh! I'm having fun
here."
Mitch Osborne
>
> Uh, no.
>
> > I view the
> > stock market as an example of a high uncertainty, high skill, strategy
> based
> > process
>
> Me too.
I think the stock market is a terrible example to use in this rather
interesting and amusing thread. The stock market requires very little
skill to succeed, what it requires is patience.
Those highly skilled managers regularly fail to do as well as the market.
For reference, read Burton Malkiel's book, "A Random Walk Down Wall Street"
which demonstrates pretty conclusively that you can do as well as the
experts simply by throwing darts into a copy of the NYSE listings and
investing in the companies hit.
Warren Buffet's approach is to invest in sound, well-managed companies and
hold them forever. Virtually no jumping into and out of the market. It
takes time, and it takes discipline not to sell when things look shaky, but
it works and virtually anyone can do it. I guess you can call that a
strategy, but it sure isn't rocket science. It does require patience and
focus, which are probably in as short supply as skill. But it could be that
the reason the market hasn't crashed lately is that more investors are
following his advice, and have not bailed out at signs of trouble. I
Day trading appears to be at the opposite extreme - using the stock market
as a substitute for a Las Vegas casino. Frankly, if I were to gamble, I'd
consider the casino a better bet, because the odds there at least are
calculable.
Regards,
Mitch Osborne
rjo...@rmi.net
><<snip>>
>
>You apparently aren't smart enough to realize that your precious ideas *ARE
>NO BIG DEAL* and are neither brilliant nor insightful. Your vague platitudes
>and psychobabble do not constitute intelligence. And you are apparently too
>dull to realize that your pathetic attempts at personal ego gratification
>have gone unnoticed. Face it. You've created a set of wargame rules. BIG
>DEAL.
>
>There. Like it?
BJ: Ty, I don't believe you can find ANY statement in my postings that express
anything similar to the statement above. You may FEEL that I have, but if you
notice that though my notes have stated strongly my position, any mention of
Piquet was generally in response to an accusation by you(in fact the original
note was entirely on other subjects, but you jumped on a couple of sentences),
and I have refrained from any comments about your intelligence, though I suspect
it is less an issue of intelligence than simple socialization. I'm debating
whether you are a tax attorney or a prosecutor in a medium sized Southern city.
The 'Must win" attitude, seems to spill over into your 'real' life, at least on
this forum. Do you ever settle a case out of Court???
>
>If not, then I suggest that you stop insulting the intelligence of people
>who disagree with you. Because glass houses are highly vulnerable to stones
>cast from within. Oh, and knock that silly patronizing off while you're at
>it.
BJ: Oh, you mean like...
There once was a gamer named Beard,
whose e-mails were frequently heard,
protesting the flaws found in others,
and arrogance that bothers,
But a look in the mirror, he sure Feared!
Or
There once was a gamer named Ty(LLD),
Who thought he'd give PK a try (LSD?),
But told it used chance,
Looked shocked and askance,
Saying, "On pure skill I'll solely rely!"(QED)
OK, I won't do that anymore! :-)
Well, enough! I'm about to leave to see a Bronco game in which their pure skill
will beat the 49ers, unless there's bad luck; they stall out on the five yard
line inexplicably, or the ball takes a funny hop, or the wind blows that field
goal wide, or the 49ers hold on to the ball for a whole half, or it rains, or
....OH,My God!
No, You're right! Their skill will be the only factor! :-)
BJ
Ty Beard
*ARE
> >NO BIG DEAL* and are neither brilliant nor insightful. Your vague
platitudes
> >and psychobabble do not constitute intelligence. And you are apparently
too
> >dull to realize that your pathetic attempts at personal ego gratification
> >have gone unnoticed. Face it. You've created a set of wargame rules. BIG
> >DEAL.
> >
> >There. Like it?
>
express
> anything similar to the statement above.
Bob, my statement is merely an open paraphrase of the assorted insinuations,
implications and damning-with-faint praises that you seem so fond of. I lack
the energy or desire to play pitty-pat with you. I prefer my insults to more
open -- more honest. If you wish to call me stupid, please just do so. It
only makes you look prissy when you insinuate it.
> You may FEEL that I have, but if you
> notice that though my notes have stated strongly my position, any mention
of
> Piquet was generally in response to an accusation by you(in fact the
original
> note was entirely on other subjects, but you jumped on a couple of
sentences),
> and I have refrained from any comments about your intelligence, though I
suspect
> it is less an issue of intelligence than simple socialization.
See, you just can't stop yourself, can you? I can't decide which is more
annoying. Your transparent efforts to incessantly congratulate yourself for
your own brilliance, or the insulting way that you patronize all who
disagree with you. Fortunately, I don't have be concerned with *why* you're
irritating; only that you are. So therefore, I shall retort:
You are an idiot. An idiot who is unable to distinguish "disagreement with
Bob" from "lack of intelligence/socialization/experience."
There. Like that?
> I'm debating
> whether you are a tax attorney or a prosecutor in a medium sized Southern
city.
Tax attorney -- though almost a prosecutor, so you're half right.
> The 'Must win" attitude, seems to spill over into your 'real' life, at
least on
> this forum. Do you ever settle a case out of Court???
Sure I do. But I *never* allow my opponent to condescend or patronize for
very long. And I try not to do that either.
> >If not, then I suggest that you stop insulting the intelligence of people
> >who disagree with you. Because glass houses are highly vulnerable to
stones
> >cast from within. Oh, and knock that silly patronizing off while you're
at
> >it.
> BJ: Oh, you mean like...
>
> There once was a gamer named Beard,
> whose e-mails were frequently heard,
> protesting the flaws found in others,
> and arrogance that bothers,
> But a look in the mirror, he sure Feared!
That's pretty good.
> Or
>
> There once was a gamer named Ty(LLD),
> Who thought he'd give PK a try (LSD?),
> But told it used chance,
> Looked shocked and askance,
> Saying, "On pure skill I'll solely rely!"(QED)
Not real good. You should quit while you're even.
> OK, I won't do that anymore! :-)
Good.
> Well, enough! I'm about to leave to see a Bronco game in which their pure
skill
> will beat the 49ers, unless there's bad luck; they stall out on the five
yard
> line inexplicably, or the ball takes a funny hop, or the wind blows that
field
> goal wide, or the 49ers hold on to the ball for a whole half, or it rains,
or
> ....OH,My God!
>
> No, You're right! Their skill will be the only factor! :-)
Well, I doubt that they'll be worried about drawing the wrong card...
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
news:19990903175150...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> >If you think uncertaintly is *fun* then great. Play games that are
> >. . ., I have ample opportunities to experience frustration,
> >unpredictability and lack of control in the Real World. I have no desire
or
> >need to do it for a hobby, and I fail to see any advantage in doing so.
>
> So, if a designer can come up with something a bit different than what has
come
> along before--especially something that seems to connect with historical
> accounts of battles better than many other wargames do--it's likely to
help
> with the "suspension of disbelief" that makes for a great game experience.
I think that you're right. I use the term "texture" to describe a game that
feels right. It is a matter of personal taste.
> If that's what's happening with PK (and I don't know whether or not it
is),
> maybe the kindest thing to do is just give it the old "thumbs up," so that
> those who consider it realistic (as well as fun, of course) can continue
to do
> so. Who needs detractors coming along and exposing the shortcomings of
their
> favorite game (or movie, or novel, or whatever)?
You're right. But I'm not a detractor of PK -- I just reject the notion that
it is inherently *superior* to games with fixed length turns.
> I say that if someone is perfectly happy believing that chess (or poker)
is the
> best simulation ever of medieval battle, we ought to smile and let him go
on
> enjoying chess (or poker) in that way.
Why heck yes.
> I kinda like DBA myself. And the last thing I need is someone coming
along
> telling me how it's really just a stupid rock-scissors-paper type of game
and
> not a good wargame at all. My response to that is, "Sssshhh! I'm having
fun
> here."
<Chuckle>
No kidding. I agree.
--Ty Beard
Thomas H. Leete
>
> Thomas H. Leete wrote in message <37D003...@mail.med.upenn.edu>...
> >Ty Beard wrote:
> >> unpredictably stop in the middle of a battle, and sit there while the
> >> Yankees moved. That does happen in PK, no?
> >
> >takes a nap) and Gettysburg (Ewell delays the attack at Cemetery Hill,
> >allowing Meade to reinforce LRT).
>
> The entire reb army magically stopped in the middle of the battle and let
> the yankees maneuver? The rebs never moved at the same time as the yankees?
At G-burg, it was a question of launching the attack, which as you
argue, could equally well be modeled by an activation or order
acceptance mechanism. Stonewall is a different story. I forget exactly
which day it was (first or second), but Stonewall's army had its orders
(attack orders, mind you - advance upon the enemy and strike his flank)
and was on the march... but stopped without ever making contact with the
enemy. I don't know how you would model this by an activation system,
unless you used some rules that called for an order stoppage roll to
occur periodically, even when not in contact with the enemy - which
would be pretty capricious, indeed.
> Well no wonder the yankees won.
Hmmm... that wouldn't be a historical example of a situation where the
commander with superior skill lost the battle due to random factors out
of his control, would it? ;)
>
> >IIRC, Bobby spent a lot of time and
> >effort on both occasions sending messages to each commander telling them
> >to get their collective butts moving, which sounds like he was worrying
> >to me. And these are just the first two examples that come to mind...
>
> I must have missed the card drawing part.
You should have been in the Reb's camp the night before...
> And I don't recall the rebs
> magically freezing in the middle of an attack...
Now come on, there are numerous incidents where a unit or units would be
on the advance, get to a point where the didn't want to go any further,
and hunker down to start pinging away with marginally useful musket
fire. That's exactly what's happening in PK...
> Of course, a predictable sequence of play can easily cover these situations.
> In multiplayer games, especially. Or with unit activation rolls -- a more
> finely tailored solution IMHO.
My main problem with activation roll type mechanisms is the total on/off
nature of them. Once the force activates, it goes hell bent for leather
until it either sweeps the field or is shot to pieces. It would
certainly be difficult for an activation system to model situations
where a formation just plain stopped for no apparent reason. Yet this
is the 'friction' of war that Clausewitz wrote about.
Tom
Thomas H. Leete
>
> Thomas H. Leete wrote in message <37D00A...@mail.med.upenn.edu>...
> > But I have to ask: am I playing 'general' or 'god'?
[snip]
>
> My answer, by the way, is that *even assuming that variable sequence games*
> get closer to being a general:
>
> 1. The increased influence of luck outweighs any gain from such systems;
As you've often said, this is your opinion.
>
> 2. Because playing a wargame is so utterly unlike being a real general, the
> question is really moot; and
But given your desire to 'play general', it is significant. For me, I
wanna play general just as close to how the big boys play it as possible
(short of standing next to a firing cannon for a few hours). If that
means playing a game where there are all sorts of things out of my
control, so be it. What I want, at the end of the day, is to say that I
faced the same problems that the great leaders of history faced, and
that I came out on top. So the question becomes, does the simulation at
hand lead the players to make the same types of decisions based on the
same level of information as their historical counterparts? This is a
very difficult question to answer. I think you'd need to consult with
military leaders who have actually commanded units in combat to get the
answer. But the answer to this question is key to determining if one
game system is better than another at letting us 'play general'.
>
> 3. Frustration -- a natural side effect of these systems -- is not fun.
Again, that's your opinion. I'm a little different - that level of
control (or lack therof) doesn't frustrate me. In the last tournament
game of PK I played, a situation came up where I maneuvered the right
unit into the right place, drew the right card, declared the right
action, and had all the variables in my favor - and the dice nuked me
right out of the water. I loved it. I still walked away from the table
feeling like I had played the better game, but this time the fickle
finger of fate struck me down. I can live with that - and the knowledge
that I'll get 'em next time...
Tom
Thomas H. Leete
>
> ToySldr wrote in message <19990903124900...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
> >JG: An article in the latest issue of Military History Quarterly on the
> Gulf
> >War describes how the 1st Infantry Division was stopped to allow some
> >realignment and never again given an order to move forward because the
> chief of
> >staff simply forgot about it. Would you call that an "unpredictable stop"?
> It
> >wouldn't happen in any fixed sequence wargame that I ever played, yet it
> did
> >happen in reality.
>
> What is so implausible about a player forgetting to move the unit? Happens
> all the time in games that I've played. What about the player running out of
> time -- all of my wargames are timed.
Firstly, these are events outside of the normal mechanics of the game,
which makes them somewhat 'artificial' in terms of the simulation being
discussed. You can't count these events as a game design element to
reflect unforseen elements of history.
Secondly, there's no need to put a real clock ticking on some games to
make the decision process stressful or to make them move in real time.
If you ever play PK, you'll find its a game that requires no clock, and
also moves along very quickly. There is no time to stop and ponder the
situation while the enemy takes his turn - you need to be ready to react
to his moves at any minute. In fact, if you aren't interfering with his
moves by reacting to them, you're not playing the game very well, as
you'll quickly learn...
> >Uncertainty in many wargaming systems is minimal. I prefer a gaming
> environment
> >that provides greater rather than lesser uncertaintly because it challenges
> my
> >"skill" in planning for the unknown, both of my opponent and of "fate."
>
> I fail to see how a system that significantly rewards card-drawing does
> reward "skill".
As I was arguing earlier, PK does not significantly reward card
drawing. The card deck is an element of the game, and can have an
effect, but it is by no means the decisive element, and does not exert a
dominating effect. Among those that play the game, much more attention
is focused on the effect of the Impetus roll, which is what really
determines which side is in the driver's seat at any given time. The
cards do not determine who has the impetus, they only restrict what you
can do with the impetus once you have it. Many of the suggested changes
to the game revolve around impetus and how it is awarded to each side so
that each side gets a fair shake. Nobody has suggested changes to the
card system to make it less random. Dumping the card deck and going to
a fixed movement procedure would be insignificant if you kept the
impetus roll - and would even make the impetus roll _more_ significant,
because once you won the impetus there would be no restriction on what
you could do. As for the impetus roll, while there can be runs of luck
for one side or the other, the experience of people who play the game is
that the total amount of impetus won by each side over the course of the
battle is damn close.
Just wanted to make sure you understood the role of the cards. Now if
you want to gripe about the capricious nature of the impetus die roll...
well then you might start sounding like a PK player!
Tom
G.
An excellent post. I agree (and it seems obvious to me) that the skill comes
in doing the best you can to minimise the "slings and arrows" and maximise
on the "outrageous fortunes" in order to grind the enemy into paste.
G.
rjo...@rmi.net wrote in message <7qmajb$26...@edrn.newsguy.com>...
>I read the recent exchange between Tom Leete and Ty Beard with some
interest
>concerning the role of Chance, the need for predicatability, the fear of
>randomeness and not wanting 'Too much' Luck in a game design.
>
>In fairness, Ty admited that, in the case of Pk, he had never played the
game,
>and some of his reaction was rooted in a visceral dislike of cards, more
than
>anything else. He also observed that the Four Horsemen of the Design
Apocolypse
>for him were Randomness, Chance, Unpredictability, and Lack of Control.
Such
>definitions as to how these qualities are used in a game and the degree
that a
>gamer finds them'good' or 'bad' is, of course, highly subjective.
>
>I find Ty's concern with these issues more than interesting since I think
the
>pendulum in design as witnessed not just by Piquet, but Crossfire, The
Rules
>With No Name, Slaughterloo, and other recent designs is headed more
strongly in
>the direction of increasing these qualities in wargame design, and away
from the
>controlled, rigidly structured, designs typified by those games introduced
in
>the late 70s, and dominating the 1980s.
>
>First, a comment on terms: Predictability, Randomness, Luck or Chance are
not
>the same thing, but elements that are each seperate though interelated.
>
>Predictability is the ability, and comfort, of being able to know IN
ADVANCE
>what the expected range is of potential 'events' that can occur either in
>movement or combat. In some games this range may be known EXACTLY. The
classic
>example of this is the Avalon-Hill CRT, where if you could get 3-1 odds on
a
>defender you knew exactly what the 6 possible outcomes were and that your
>chances were quite assuredly good, and the only variable in achieving these
odds
>were completely under your control-only the die roll resolution was a
>'variable', and that variable had a very limited range of outcomes.
Movement
>and stacking were the key rules to understand, and some gamers got quite
>proficient in assembling the 'magic' numbers. Only the dice could beat you
and
>you could limit that threat quite well.
>
>Randomness, at its core, just means that the next occurence has no assured
>pattern. It should be noted that randomness in a statistical sense can be a
>'neutral' arbiter of fairness. Most 'fixed' move sequences mean that you
can
>know EXACTLY when the artillery will fire, the cavalry will move, or the
>reinforcements will enter the field of battle. Good gamers can, again, use
that
>foreknowledge to maximize their chances for success, and this prescient
>knowledge will affect their move strategies by knowing EXACTLY when they
are
>threatened by cavalry, or vulnerable to artillery fire. Only gross
inattention
>could allow the enemy to surprise you, and a firm knowledge of this
sequence
>means you could limit that threat quite well.
>
>Chance and luck are often misunderstood, and many a rule set founders on
the
>designer's misunderstanding of the mathematics of chance. It is also a
'Joker'
>in the game design, Most gamers want to feel that a wargame is a game of
skill,
>but know that chance roams the battlefield. Many gamers are quite
comfortable
>with chance determining weapon effectiveness, and an occasional 'critical
hit',
>but grow uncomfortable with wider applications of either randomness or
'luck'.
>They fear that it will minimize their control of events, and devalue their
>skill.
>
>This skill is measured in their mind by closely controlling the movement of
>troops, weighing the EXACT combat values of their units by weaponry and
number,
>and thereby placing these units in a position against an enemy force, whose
>values are also known, where chance is minimized, so that the one variable,
a
>die roll, in a game is essentially heavily limited, and their abilities are
>rewarded with victory!
>
>Tedious game! Bad history! The examples of commanders of small forces or
large
>that found their well laid plans frustrated by a subordinate's delay,
>misunderstanding, or perfidity, as well has Mala Fortuna, are so legion as
to be
>COMMON in battle reports.
>
>The lack of precise knowledge as to what exactly is going on 'up front'
>requiring a commander to use judgement, guestimates, and experience to
pierce
>the 'fog of war' is truly the NORMAL situation for a commander, not the
>exception. The inability, on all levels of command, to predict what would
occur
>next, in any degree of detail, were quite limited and required deduction
and
>knowledge of your force, and the enemy to have any success. It was NOT a
>given-Ask Hooker, Mack, or Custer!
>
>Chance or luck constantly haunted the perceptions of top command.
Napoleon,
>when introduced to a young Brigadier that was described as learned in the
>literature of warfare having read Caesar and Frederick; a master of the
>Drillbook and regulations, and incredibly brave, only asked, "Yes, but is
he
>lucky?"
>
>Von Clauswitz in his 'Vom Krieg' comments that of all human activities war
most
>closely resembles a game of cards!
>
>And yet, gamers worry that unless the design allows them total knowledge,
total
>control, and total limitations on the allowed outcomes, their 'SKILL' will
be
>lost in a mere game of die throws, card draws, and luck.
>
>The root of this has been a long standing feeling that Chess was the best
game
>metaphor for battle-minimal chance, total intelligence of terrain and troop
>values, defined movement, set sequence, and skill would be gained by
practice
>and experience in manipulating these set patterns on the field of play.
>
>Wargames have often be called 'Battle-Chess' and designers and gamers have
>fallen into the habit of viewing their games in this light.
>
>I think many current designers are rejecting this metaphor as one that
portrays
>battle/war poorly, and are substituting what I call the 'Poker' metaphor.
In
>this view of battle, each side has hidden resources, of varying value, that
they
>must use to defeat their adversaries. This requires judgement, experience,
and
>knowledge of the enemy. You must estimate his strength-whether he is
>bluffing(feinting) or has the necessary strength to contest your 'attack'.
You
>must pay attention to Army morale( Your money/chips) and you must deal with
>chance on an ongoing basis-never knowing from hand to hand (Hour to hour)
what
>the capabilities of your force may exactly be, but constantly striving to
>maximize the chance of victory through management of all the variables in
the
>game.
>
>Poker has a high degree of chance and randomness, but a 'pro' will have all
your
>money before the night's over 95% of the time. Skill is as present in Poker
as
>in Chess.
>
>As a manager in business, I know that nothing is a given- a fixed and
>predictable set-piece, but is, very much, the skill acquired in managing a
wide
>range of variables to maximize your chances of success, NOT lining up a
shopping
>list of fixed, given, obvious factors and eliminating risk.
>
>Officers in the military that wish to be successful must acquire this trait
of
>juggling variables,unknowns, chance, and the unexpected. It is this
ability to
>deal with the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' that distinguishes
the
>great officers from the drones. And yet many a wargame design speaks more
to
>the skills of an accountant and CPA than to the issues of variable
management.
>
>And the big joke, is that when you do play 'Chess with dice' and the only
>variable in the game is the die-roll resolution of combat-Luck,randomness,
and
>chance actually have a proportionately larger role in determining the
victor
>than in games that allow more variability throughout the game structure.
>
>Finally, the use of any randomnizing tool, whether regular dice, decimal
dice,
>multi-sided dice, playing cards, custom cards, or coin flips says NOTHING
about
>the design itself. They are merely tools that a designer uses in a design
to
>create given effects. To reject a game simply because it uses a different
tool
>confuses the medium with the message!
>
>BJ
>
G.
Ty Beard wrote in message ...
>>The skill of the player is used to skew the possible outcomes such
>>that my average outcome is bigger than your average outcome, while
>>at the same time trying to keep my variance as low as possible.
>
>That's the typical claim of the folks who like unpredictable sequences of
>play -- i.e., that there's a skill increase necessary to "manage" the
>randomness and unpredictability. My problem is that I don't find this
>convincing. It has been my experience that mediocre players do better in
>games that have more "randomness" and "unpredictability" -- which is
>consistent with my thesis.
I had kind of told myself that I wouldn't argue with Ty anymore (it's a
fruitless exercise for both sides) but I couldn't resist this one.
They are not mediocre players Ty, they are better players than you at
playing that type of game. Naturally you are better at playing "your" type
of game, but that doesn't mean they are mediocre. They are only "mediocre"
as *you* define the term. Surely you can see it's semantics you use and not
mathematics here?
G.
>
>>Consider the following game: We each throw 100 die-rolls. For each
>>dieroll, you can decide between two dice: a 6-sided one and a 10-sided
>>one. Player 1 always picks a die at random, he uses no skill. But
>>player 2, due to his insight in the game, always picks the the 10-sided
>>one. The winner is the player with the highest total of 100 die-rolls.
>>Is there a chance that player 1 will win? Yes, but is very unlikely.
>
>I don't get the point. This game actually rewards skill -- i.e., being
sharp
>enough to roll the d10. And the large number of *equally* important die
>rolls minimizes variance. But in a wargame, a given turn can be far more
>important than the other turns. The game can be won or lost in that turn.
So
>an unpredictable turn sequence just increases the role of luck *at the
>critical moment*. That's just not the case with the dice game. Each turn
has
>the exact same significance as the other.
>
>And that's why I especially dislike games with unpredictable turn
sequences.
>
>>But I agree with you, that it is conceivable that a no-skill player
>>wins from a skilled player with a non-zero probability. In good game
>>designs, this non-zero probability is low, not 50%.
>
>Oh sure, I'd agree. Even if PK *is* my worst nightmare of a doodad-laden,
>luck driven, unintuitive system, I'll bet that the good players in our club
>will beat the bad players in our club more often than not. And I'd even bet
>that the bad player will tend to like the game more than the good players.
I
>wonder why?
>
>I just don't like losing a game to bad luck. It cheats me out of a victory
>and it cheapens my opponent's victory. Therefore, I want luck to have the
>role that you described in your example: a large number of individually
>insignificant die rolls. I don't want something as important as the length
>of a game turn to depend on roll of a die or the draw of a card. That gives
>luck, not skill, the most important role, IMHO.
>
>--Ty Beard
>
>
G.
rjo...@rmi.net wrote in message <7qoq8p$2...@edrn.newsguy.com>...
>In article <37CFD519...@worldnet.att.net>, nuk...@worldnet.att.net
says...
><<snip>>
>>
>>How many of those out there have in fact been in the command structure at
>>Brigade or
>>higher level?
>>
>>It is a military term - FUBAR.
>>
>>DAW
I love that term....it IS so military...well...so government really....:)
>BJ: I hesitate to make the following remarks, but do so as an intellectual
>query, not as any implied criticism or denigration of any group.
Ditto my reply.
>It appears to me that a gamer and/or designer will let his life experiences
(or
>lack thereof) heavily influence what, to him, constitutes a good game.
I would say this is a self-evident fact.
>I believe the majority of wargamers at the present time have no direct
>experience with the military, combat, or war. What experience they do have
of
>such things are from reading history books, and,very rarely, from listening
to
>the accounts of an elder relative(And rarer every day!)
I agree.
>The historian's view of battle is that of a Monday Morning Quarterback, it
has
>the advantage of considered clarity, multiple viewpoints over an extended
period
>of time, and it often lends a false aura of inevitability to the way events
>during battle unfold. Things seem quite rational and sequential to the
reader
>of the book, and that transfers to his perception of battle and war. This
group
>generally credits the military with far more orderly Command and Control
than
>people that have actually been there.
I agree some more.
>They are attracted to rules which replicate the history book's retelling of
>battle-and are blind to the nature of battle as it is actually experienced.
>Their wargames are orderly, highly structured, possess few 'unknowns', and
often
>have the stately and measured pace of a doctoral disertation. Since they
only
>know war from the pages of their books this 'retelling' in such a game
matches
>their perceptions perfectly!
And some more still.
>There are two other smaller groups of wargamers who do have experience of
the
>military and, sometimes, combat. The larger of the two is non-coms, past
and
>present, represented by sergeants, chiefs, and warrant officers. This
group's
>experiences and training is in small unit leadership and tactics. They
have
>experienced the military life and have a firm understanding of the need for
>control and order, but are equally familiar with the chaotic nature of
combat
>and the ongoing friction of both movement and combat action.
>
>This group generally believes that victory comes from imposing order on
this
>threatening chaos ("Check that rifle sling, Smith!"; "Johnson, just where
do you
>think you're going?"; "Green, get your sorry ass, up behind that wall!")
and at
>their level of combat they're absolutely right! But should we be surprised
that
>this group would be attracted to detailed rules, but would expect a certain
>degree of chaos, that they would then 'overcome'. It should not surprise
us if
>they were great fans of skirmish level games-and minor tactics.
Agreed again! (Not been in the military but other things in my life that i
guess are somewhat related to this sort of thing. A pretty good insight into
my psychology...geez...that's scary. A game designer looking into my
brain?!?!).
>The smallest group, by far, would be past or present officers. This group
would
>be, by experience and training, the most familiar with the 'big' picture,
the
>more abstract levels of war, and the chaotic and unpredictable nature of
war.
>Their job is to solve these problems. They must manage the chaos above
them in
>the chain of command, execute these orders in the midst of the whirlwind of
>battle around them or to their front, and communicate effectively through
their
>leadership and example with the men in their command. They know their
>mission/orders and must manage the 'friction' of battle that frustrates the
>achievement of those orders. They don't impose order as much as
>manage-solve-and channel the actions of their command as they guess the
>intentions of the enemy, allow for the terrain being rougher than upper
>command's maps showed, make sure their best unit is at the point, keep a
reserve
>in hand just in case the 'unexpected' happens(and it will). This group
would be
>attracted to a game with high degrees of chaos/unknowns and required
problem
>solving of a more subtle nature. Abstraction would be a more comfortable
>environment for them because they 'live' there in performing their 'job'.
I agree again.
>This does not mean that any one approach is right or wrong, nor that
exceptions
>are not plentiful, but it does pose the question-Is percieved 'realism' and
>design acceptability a function of our life experiences, career focus, and
what
>part of the problem we are most familiar with?
>
>BJ
To try and answer your question:
I believe that if it were somehow possible to catalogue every conflict that
ever occurred with as precise a data file as possible concerning elements of
randomness, weapon types, morale considerations etc, some kind of (very
complex) pattern would show. Regardless of what that pattern is (including
total chaos) by default, a game design which resembles that pattern more
closely than another would by default be more "realistic".
It is obvious (to those who understand English anyway) that 'simulation'
does NOT mean 'exactly the same as'. It means rather "as close as we can get
to reality". In wargaming, this is probably a relatively small percentage,
whilst in some PC games that simulate the operation of aircraft, except for
force-feedback, the approximation to reality would be quite high.
Therefore BJ, I believe that those whose lives and minds best understand how
war happens, or rather, what the "shape of the pattern" is so to speak,
would naturally design more realistic games.
I disagree that wargaming can't be realistic. It's just that the degree of
realism is probably quite a bit lower than that we're used to in say the
simulation of racing a F1 car on a PC game (which probably is not very close
to actually racing a car anyway, since people who can't drive might well be
very good at the game). It's semantics in the end, which is why maybe
simulation is a better word to use than realism in the wargaming context,
but generally yes, I would answer your question with a resounding YES. It's
actually a fact. By default, you can't design (consciously) a good
approximation of a process you have no experience of, no understanding of
and no knowledge of, so obviously, our level of understanding of the thing,
our degree of exposure to it and our familiarity with certain aspects of it
will all come into play.
G.
G.
Patrick Carroll wrote in message
<19990903132540...@ng-ba1.aol.com>...
>Bob says:
>> It is interesting that Peter Young, Don Featherstone, and other
>>> people that have actually experienced combat are far more attracted to
>>simple
>>> rules, fog of war, and chance. . . .
>
computerization,
>the wargames actually used at war colleges generally did *not* include any
>random factors.
>
>Prussian game in which all movements & combat results were adjudicated by
an
>expert: an officer who presumably had enough know-how to "just see" what
would
>happen on a real battlefield under similar circumstances.
>
>H.G. Welles' "Little Wars" was clearly an effort to bring wargaming to the
>civilian world. But even there, the designer/author consciously rejects
dice
>and other such randomizers: he says that in a wargame, something ought to
>really happen, not just be *said* to have happened (based on a throw of the
>dice). Thus his little spring-loaded cannons.
Not familiar with the book, so don't know if where the cannon 'shots' land
makes a difference or not, but if they do, how is this different from
rolling a die that has had modifiers applied to it?
>Sometime in the 20th century, dice began to be acceptable. But I know from
>personal experience that even now there's more than a little suspicion
about
>the practice (as this thread reinforces). It was also in the mid 20th
century
>that wargame designers started trying to devise comprehensive rules that
would
>cover every possible contingency--thus trying, in effect, to turn war into
an
>algorithm.
>
>I wonder what Sun Tzu, Hannibal, Frederick, or Patton would say about such
>attempts. . . .
Musashi says to "change with the times" so I guess BJ is right!
G.
G.
Ty Beard wrote in message ...
>Yet you used the "realism" or "unhistorical" argument to justify
>unpredictable systems in PK. Make up your mind -- you can't have it both
>ways. You also imply a fact not in evidence -- that dealing with variables
>is a skill. What if it's an unlearnable talent? Is it reasonable to design
>games that allow people with this talent an overwhelming advantage?
Can you give me an example (other than winning at the type of wargames you
are referring to) of what an "unlearnable talent" is? You don't believe in
magic I hope?
G.
G.
Ty Beard wrote in message ...
>> In article <nIRz3.1081$oG5.37...@news.randori.com>, "Ty says...
>> <<snip of much where Ty and I seem to be talking past each other>>
>
>I'm not so sure about that. I understand what you've said and I suspect you
>understand what I've said.
>
>> BJ: No-it might just point out that your wargame rules don't ask for the
>same
>> skills as poker.
>
>Since my point was that increased randomness in a game devalues skill, I
>haven't the foggiest idea what this point has to do with the price of putty
>in China.
My God man. Either you're DUMB or you're just trying to avoid the issues. I
noticed that too with our own little 'war' on other subjects. Can't you
follow a line of reasoning other than your own? What are you egomaniacal? Or
do you just hate being proved wrong so often that you have to resort to
"pretend" stupidity?
>> If one then accepts Poker as an acceptable metahphor/model for
>> battle-then it could lead one to say that your wargame rules are asking
>for the
>> wrong skills from your commanders...
>
>True -- but irrelevant to the context of my original post.
HOW is this irrelevant? It's precisely the point!
BJ is saying that management of the unpredictable IS part of the wargaming
skill.
>I personally find games that take too long to be the SINGLE most artificial
>rule structure. Almost as high are rules that fail to impose time limits on
>the commanders.
If you have a random sequence of events you might not need a time-limit to
simulate the 'I'd like more time' feeling that I presume is prevalent to any
officer in combat.
>And the point I've been trying to make all along is that variable turn
>systems are not inherently superior to fixed length turn systems -- as you
>constantly (and annoyingly) assert and insinuate. It's simply a question of
>personal taste and I find compelling reasons *not* to use variable turn
>length systems.
I'd be interested to hear some of those reasons.
>And again, hardly unique to PK.
I don't see that he was referring to PK in particular.
I think you're slightly obsessed with BJ's game or at least your idea that
he's just boasting all over the place about it. Personally (subjective as
yours no doubt) my opinion is that BJ has no false modesty. I don't think he
is unnecessarily egomaniacal about his game.
>> There are many articles on Magweb that address this whole issue. That
>statement
>> above can only be made by someone who is fairly unfamiliar with the rules
>and
>> totally unaware of the theory of the design.
>
>Ah, the "you're too dumb to understand" retort. Very convincing.
Huh?! I don't see where you came to that conclusion from. Seems to me YOU
are the egomaniac here. Always thinking it's all about YOU or HIM. Ever
wonder about global things? Objective facts? things like that?
>Congratulations, you've gotten on my last nerve.
>
>Let *me* try one now.
>
>You apparently aren't smart enough to realize that your precious ideas *ARE
>NO BIG DEAL* and are neither brilliant nor insightful.
How would you know? You miss most of his ideas when he posts here from what
I can see and
if you're referring to PK, you still haven't played it right? So how would
you know? Being very objective again eh?
>Your vague platitudes
>and psychobabble do not constitute intelligence. And you are apparently too
>dull to realize that your pathetic attempts at personal ego gratification
>have gone unnoticed. Face it. You've created a set of wargame rules. BIG
>DEAL.
Somehow I don't think BJ will be crushed by this. I think he realises the
objective "importance" of his creation better than you frankly.
>> You again confuse(willingly) the tool with the end product-the medium
with
>> the message.
>No I don't. I assert that the tool that you choose is not necessarily the
>best tool to achieve the end. And I also reject the notion that confusion
>and frustration is the ideal end in wargame design.
I think for the first time I see what TY is trying to say here. My God man,
you ARE an egomaniac.
You find the fact that your little army hasn't done PRECISELY as you wanted
them to do frustrating.
And you equate this with a "bad" set of rules (presumably because it lowers
your chances of predicting the outcome of a conflict)!
Good God man, has it ever occured to you that being able to deal with the
"frustrating" aspects of the game so that you STILL can predict with
reasonable accuracy the outcome of a conflict is in fact a skill that
encompasess a few more things other than just mechanics?
>> 2. There can be no evidence(boy, does your language reflect your work!!)
>as the
>> final determination is aesthetic and subjective,
>
>Glad you agree with me.
No, again, he's actually saying your statement was invalid to begin with. If
you say "the sky is not brown" and he says "of course not, it's blue". It
doesn't mean you made a good point and he's agreeing with you. He's actually
trying to show you that you were talking nonsese to begin with. But an
egomaniac wouldn't see that....
>> BUT if innovation leads to new
>> perceptions and treatments and attracts new adherents, then it fulfills a
>need
>> that the old "tried and true" weren't serving!
>
>True enough and that's fine with me. I only dispute the notion that these
>*allegedly* new mechanics are objectively superior to previous ones. As I
>said earlier -- if you like unpredictability, then play unpredictable
games.
>Just don't delude yourself into think that you (or your designs) are
smarter
>and more insightful than those of us who choose more predictable games.
>Because it just ain't so...
Actaully I disagree with you here, but honestly don't believe you posses the
intellectual capacity to have anything meaningful come out of an argument
with you about it.
I made an error in replying to any of this thread really. At least in terms
of my use of time.
But who knows, maybe someone somewhere is entertained by them at least in
whatever form, and I suppose that's something.
>Flame, killfile or rationed discourse -- your call.
>
>--Ty Beard
You are incapable of rationed discourse. Actually I lie...as long as we
understand that rationed, by YOUR standards means : "Rationalising that
which I want to be the truth".
By MY standards, and I suspect BJs and most logical people, 'rationed' is
generally used to mean "following the rules of logic".
G.
Patrick Carroll
'shots' land
>makes a difference or not, but if they do, how is this different from
>rolling a die that has had modifiers applied to it?
How is shooting at targets different from shooting craps? I think that's
self-explanatory, isn't it?
Jay
>BJ: Quite the contrary, The metaphor for Poker is perfect in this regard. Do
>you truly believe you can beat me in poker? Regardless of the cards dealt on a
>given evening, I ask you to please call and state your first available open date
>and the table stakes!
I'll kick your yankee ass in poker Bob. But that;s another issue.
>BJ: Bullshit! The more one is required to deal with the proper management of a
>system that requires more subtle and indirect strategies, that includes the
>management of 'shit happens' the closer one is to the issues of the battlefield.
>You, sir, are a fan of the 'test-tube' experiment-the 'perfect' situation.
>
>I must also comment that 'more chance' as a term applying to most present
>designs, truly means not much chance-since most designers like NONE! Chance ,
>information, the vaguaries if war, are all variables to be managed better than
>the enemy-He who does wins a victory based on far more subtler bases than "I've
>got 12, he's got 8----I need a 3 or better!"
I'm no soldier, but I've seen the odd angry shot. I can't help but
think that ANY game attempt to deal with the real thing is absurdly
simple (be it random or not) or way too complicated..
>
>Most algorithims in wargames are absurdly SIMPLE! Too simple!
Not too simple. They should be simple.
PK has a number of mechanisms for making things difficult, but is no
more "realistic" than Tactics II. PK has alot of good points, based
on my limited play with the game. It's not reality, but it's chaos
theory is quite good. The problem, as I see it through a limited lens,
is that PK is not suited to skirmish scale (at least not at the rules
level presented). PK is probably not suited to a variety of
circumstances.
Jay
"There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at.
And missed."
W.S. Churchill
Remove the wildcard from the "reply-to" address
if replying by e-mail.
mur...@my-deja.com
domi...@aol.com (Patrick Carroll) wrote:
>
> After some thirty years as a wargamer, I've concluded that the
*actual* games
> of chess and poker do just about as good a job of simulating war as
do wargames
> based on the "metaphor" of poker or chess. The wargames just happen
to be
> laden with the kind of "chrome" that appeals to military-history
buffs.
>
>
here,here!! a voice of reason!
after 25 years of wargaming (mostly cardboard, recently napoleonic
miniatures) i agree with this last statement- in trying to understand
my reason fascination with painting and pushing French corps, i have
decided that i am and always be a gamer for thrill of the mental
stimulation, the challenge of resource management and sound planning,
and most ultimately now, the joy of mixing gaming with history and
painting-
and i think most people are gamers first, military history re-enactors
third or fourth-
as far as unpredictability goes, i find quite enough of it on the both
sides of the table- the human factor is so exquisite compared to a
computer opponent- and i will always make a few mistakes that require
unanticipated crisis management- these things i just chalk up to the
"friction" of table combat- at this point in my miniatures battles
career, i do not view increased unpredictability in the game structure
as a more accurate reflection of real warfare- how absurd that anything
we do on a table could even be construed as such!
it is a game! we are gamers! it beats the heck out of Risk! and it is
richer for the historical connotations that ring with those of us who
enjoy this hobby-
i myself do not need to defend a perspective that favors one set of
rules over another- right now i pretty much live for my weekly fix of
Napoleon's Battles and plan to do so at least through the it me it
takes me paint up multiple corps of representative nationalities and
minor allies- then maybe i will have it all figured out and move on,
but i will stil be just a gamer with a historical bent-
la
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard wrote:
> At G-burg, it was a question of launching the attack, which as you
> argue, could equally well be modeled by an activation or order
> acceptance mechanism. Stonewall is a different story. I forget exactly
> which day it was (first or second), but Stonewall's army had its orders
> (attack orders, mind you - advance upon the enemy and strike his flank)
> and was on the march... but stopped without ever making contact with the
> enemy. I don't know how you would model this by an activation system,
> unless you used some rules that called for an order stoppage roll to
> occur periodically, even when not in contact with the enemy - which
> would be pretty capricious, indeed.
No more capricious, IMHO, than having the turn length dependent on
randomizers. Actually, though, you can simply dice for the distance each
stand moves. A number of my games have this mechanic and I've come to like
it.
> > Well no wonder the yankees won.
>
> Hmmm... that wouldn't be a historical example of a situation where the
> commander with superior skill lost the battle due to random factors out
> of his control, would it? ;)
Is it? I thought that "managing the probabilities" was the highest form of
skill. :)
> > >IIRC, Bobby spent a lot of time and
> > >effort on both occasions sending messages to each commander telling
them
> > >to get their collective butts moving, which sounds like he was worrying
> > >to me. And these are just the first two examples that come to mind...
> >
> > I must have missed the card drawing part.
>
> You should have been in the Reb's camp the night before...
>
> > And I don't recall the rebs
> > magically freezing in the middle of an attack...
>
> Now come on, there are numerous incidents where a unit or units would be
> on the advance, get to a point where the didn't want to go any further,
> and hunker down to start pinging away with marginally useful musket
> fire. That's exactly what's happening in PK...
The entire army?
> > Of course, a predictable sequence of play can easily cover these
situations.
> > In multiplayer games, especially. Or with unit activation rolls -- a
more
> > finely tailored solution IMHO.
>
> My main problem with activation roll type mechanisms is the total on/off
> nature of them.
As opposed to the end of the entire bloody turn being determined by a
randomizer?
> Once the force activates, it goes hell bent for leather
> until it either sweeps the field or is shot to pieces.
Not necessarily. Fire and Fury integrates an activation roll with a variable
move distance.
> It would
> certainly be difficult for an activation system to model situations
> where a formation just plain stopped for no apparent reason. Yet this
> is the 'friction' of war that Clausewitz wrote about.
Again, you overstate your case, IMHO.
You do realize that, even if we assume that these problems *must* be
modeled, they can quite easily be modelled with a few simple mechanics in a
fixed sequence game? All the while avoiding the problem of using a randmizer
to determine *the most important factor in the game* -- the turn length.
See, in most wargames (assuming comparable armies), if I get 2 or 3 turns
(or the equivalent) in a row, I can cripple you so badly that it won't
matter if you later get 2 or 3 turns in a row. You PK guys handwave this by
vague mutterings about friction and the like. But if this is true, and if
the system allows it, then your system basically boils down to "draw better
cards to win". This is a complaint I have heard levied at PK -- and I have
yet to hear a plausible defense of it from the PK folks -- other than "stuff
happens."
Does the system allow this to happen at least once in a game?
By the way, if you *like* this, then fine. Enjoy! Just don't try to bluff me
into accepting that this is far and away the *best* way to do a wargame.
Because I flat-out don't see how.
To be fair, I'm gonna get a copy of PK ASAP and give it a rigorous workout.
Anyone have a xeroxed copy they can send me?
Just kidding Bob, put down the musket.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
games*
> > get closer to being a general:
> >
> > 1. The increased influence of luck outweighs any gain from such systems;
>
> As you've often said, this is your opinion.
Yes -- backed up by personal observation. And not refuted (IMHO) by the
advocates of such systems. Again, I'll try PK and see if it's the Holy
Grail.
> > 2. Because playing a wargame is so utterly unlike being a real general,
the
> > question is really moot; and
>
> But given your desire to 'play general', it is significant.
You misunderstand what I mean by "playing general". I want to play with toy
soldiers and match wits against my opponents. The rest is mere chrome.
> For me, I
> wanna play general just as close to how the big boys play it as possible
> (short of standing next to a firing cannon for a few hours).
Then why don't you play double-blind games with pre-plotted simultaneous
movement?
> > 3. Frustration -- a natural side effect of these systems -- is not fun.
>
> Again, that's your opinion.
In my case, it is fact. But yes, it is a matter of taste.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
Happens
> > all the time in games that I've played. What about the player running
out of
> > time -- all of my wargames are timed.
>
> Firstly, these are events outside of the normal mechanics of the game,
> which makes them somewhat 'artificial' in terms of the simulation being
> discussed.
No more "artificial" that using cards to end the game turn.
> Secondly, there's no need to put a real clock ticking on some games to
> make the decision process stressful or to make them move in real time.
Oh yes there is. The pressure of *time* was the greatest pressure on
historical commanders. Many bad decisions were made because the commanders
didn't have the luxury of pondering their options. Now who's the control
freak?
> > I fail to see how a system that significantly rewards card-drawing does
> > reward "skill".
>
> As I was arguing earlier, PK does not significantly reward card
> drawing.
1. If we're playing a game between 2 similar and equal armies, will I
cripple you if I get to move the equivalent of 3 average turns before you
do?
2. Does PK's system allow this to happen in theory?
3. Would it happen at least once every 2 games on the average?
If these questions are all answered "yes", then about half of your games
boil down to "who draws the best card?"
> Just wanted to make sure you understood the role of the cards. Now if
> you want to gripe about the capricious nature of the impetus die roll...
> well then you might start sounding like a PK player!
Well, since the discussion is turning more and more to a specific discussion
on PK, I'm gonna have to buy the game. It's a hard way to make a sale, I'd
think.
--Ty Beard
Patrick Carroll
>the
>> > question is really moot; and
>>
>> But given your desire to 'play general', it is significant.
>
>You misunderstand what I mean by "playing general". I want to play with toy
>soldiers and match wits against my opponents. The rest is mere chrome.
There (in the interchange quoted above), I think, lies the crux of the matter.
Wargames were a great thrill for many of us for years before any sort of
"command control" mechanism became popular. In our own way, we were sort of
"playing general" all along, and enjoying it to the fullest. And within
whatever time constraints we labored under, the usual case was: the more
detail, the better. The more "stuff" there was in the game, the more our
imagination was stimulated, and the more we felt we'd been transported back in
time and placed in command of an army.
But designers will be innovative. Companies like SPI encouraged it (every new
game they released seemed like a novel design experiment for a while). And
it's no surprise that some of the innovations became popular. I myself still
think it's pretty cool that in DBA I can't move *all* my elements each turn,
and that it's because of a die roll that simulates "friction" or limitations on
command & control. Somehow that little detail just grabs my imagination and
makes the game seem a bit more realistic to me.
Evidently, Piquet takes that to another level and makes much more of it--and
lots of wargamers love it. Even without playing the game, I can understand
why: it's a reasonably simple mechanism which puts a new twist on the
experience of wargaming and can aid our "suspension of disbelief"--which in
turn leads to the vicarious enjoyment of generalship.
Every time such an innovation becomes popular, it's sure to cast a shadow over
all that has come before. We wonder, "If this is realistic, does it mean my
older games are relatively unrealistic?" Well--it does if you believe it does.
But you can just as easily pooh-pooh the innovation and go on believing in and
enjoying your old games.
In short, as we all know, it's really just a matter of taste.
To me, these little debates are just part of the hobby; it's part of what makes
it all fun. The only part of it that really concerns me is that *some* folks
are taking the innovation a bit too seriously. A couple posts back, someone
said he wants to get as close as he can to the *actual* experience of
generalship, for instance. I can empathize with that, but I also know from
experience that wargames are worlds away from generalship and real battle. The
most realistic wargame in the world is vastly more like chess than like real
war.
So, to me it's a danger sign when someone says wargames ought to give players
something very much like the actual experience of war or generalship. They're
implying that wargames ought to be educational in that way, that they ought to
fully simulate the real thing. In reality, wargames barely scratch the surface
of reality; they inevitably distort the truth.
Once I became disillusioned about that, a number of years ago, I personally
turned to simpler games. I used to like games with complicated mechanics and
scads of detail. But I had more time back then, and I also wanted to believe
wargames were truly realistic. Now that I've decided wargames are really just
imagination stimulators, I can have just as much fun with a simple, fast-moving
game.
Still, there's something to be said for innovations like Piquet. If the game
you've been playing has started to seem dry or begun to lose its credibility,
an innovative system might be just the ticket to get you "back in the groove"
again.
rjo...@rmi.net
>
>Ty, writing on at great length about a subject (PK) that he has little direct
>knowledge of, and with seemingly unlimited time to do so( Are you government
>employed?) said:
>1. If we're playing a game between 2 similar and equal armies, will I
>cripple you if I get to move the equivalent of 3 average turns before you
>do?
BJ: No, you will not. First of all the terminology is not consistent with most
games when the term "turn" is used. The closest equivalent in PK is a 'phase'
made up of 20 impetus that are apportioned by die roll, not card draw.
Within a given phase one army may win ALL of the impetus, or a strong majority
of it, BUT that is additionally controlled by what the commander chooses to do
with his impetus, and, of course, what specific opportunities are offered to him
by the current move sequence(deploy, advance, maneuver, etc.) which, unlike the
more predictable and orderly MCM games is randomized and not predictable to
either side.
Can some armies move a considerable number of their troops a goodly distance?
Sure. Does one commander always move like a Tango dance partner-step for step
ABSOLUTELY identically to its' adversary? NO!
Ty I can find many examples of UNEQUAL movement and opportunity dividing two
contestants in a battle-and damn few where everything was equal.
Does the flow of impetus get widely unbalanced? On occasion it can, and this is
what adds reality and tension to deployments, plans, and the nature of
concentrated attacks. The behavior of units on the table in PK is FAR closer to
those we read about in battle reports than the Move-counter-move, two-step with
its imposed equality.
The mathematics of this impetus distribution usually are quite balanced over the
play of an entire game-often within 10% of each other's totals. It is not
uncommon for the lesser 'impetus' side to win the battle. In no case is this
generally an arbiter of victory, though mathematically one side winning ALL the
impetus could happen once in 100,000,000 games.
>
>2. Does PK's system allow this to happen in theory?
BJ: Yes, but, just as in life, where all things are possible, but few actually
happen. Experienced Piqueteers generally become less and less concerned about
the distribution of impetus(which has nothing to do with the cards) as they grow
comfortable with the statistical limits and reality of what the impetus' effect
actually is in game play.
For those gamers that are used to their neat little 'everything is equal' world,
it can be a shock! Have you ever reflected that the tit-for-tat models is
monstrously off-target in portraying any historical battle, but that familarity
with its' mechanics has led gamers to accept it as a reasonable model of time?
>
>3. Would it happen at least once every 2 games on the average?
BJ: No. Most impetus differences on any given intiative throw average 5.5 with
both sides having EXACTLY a 50% chance of winning. Go read a book on randomness
and probability. Piquet, in effect, relies on mathematics to impose the order
and degree of action, not a set 'u-go/I go' structure.
>
>If these questions are all answered "yes", then about half of your games
>boil down to "who draws the best card?"
BJ: You can sound so knowledgable for someone that has NO first-hand
experience. As I noted above-the determination of who goes, and the degree of
his actions, are NOT determined by cards. The effectivenmess of a player's
actions taken are directly related to his skill in applying that energy within
his move sequence-which is randomized by the cards.
A turn ends by either a duplicate die roll-indicating a 'collapse' of all
available time-a pause in the battle, or that units on both sides did little
within that 'time' span, or by one of the armies going completely through their
sequence(used all their cards)-NO CARD ENDS A TURN.
>
>> Just wanted to make sure you understood the role of the cards. Now if
>> you want to gripe about the capricious nature of the impetus die roll...
>> well then you might start sounding like a PK player!
>
>Well, since the discussion is turning more and more to a specific discussion
>on PK, I'm gonna have to buy the game. It's a hard way to make a sale, I'd
>think.
>
>--Ty Beard
>
BJ: Ty, two things:
1. I don't need your sale.
2. It ain't free!
BJ
G.
Patrick Carroll wrote in message
Sure...but you'll notice I said "rolling a die that has had modifiers
applied" not "shooting craps".
My point is that the little cannon's shot is going to land imprecisely, with
a margin of error in other words, and this is precisely what rolling a die
that has had modifiers applied does. It creates a general area of
probability within certain limits.
I don't see that either system negates a certain amount of randomness. So
how are they different?
G.
Ty Beard
> In article <rj7A3.1185$oG5.52...@news.randori.com>, "Ty says...
> >
> >Ty, writing on at great length about a subject (PK) that he has little
direct
> >knowledge of, and with seemingly unlimited time to do so( Are you
government
> >employed?) said:
No, thank heavens. However, I suppose that we can exchange 1099's (or W-2's
in your case) if the purpose of your statement is to compare earnings, or
some other such silliness. And I notice, Mr. "I'm a Network TV Exec" that
you seem to have plenty of time as well. What is your real job? Other than
being a twit.
Of course, yesterday was a reward for finishing a case -- I took the day
off. Sad I guess, that I should spend it arguing with you.
And as I have said, I have not played PK. It could be the Holy Grail. But
your hapless "defense" -- if your self-serving drivel can be described as
such -- of its systems make me question whether I should even bother.
> >Playing a game between 2 similar and equal armies, will I
> >cripple you if I get to move the equivalent of 3 average turns before you
> >do?
>
> BJ: No, you will not.
Do you seriously suggest that it is not a significant advantage to
move/shoot/etc., 3 times more than average? And to do it all before my
opponent does?
> Can some armies move a considerable number of their troops a goodly
distance?
> Sure. Does one commander always move like a Tango dance partner-step for
step
> ABSOLUTELY identically to its' adversary? NO!
>
> Ty I can find many examples of UNEQUAL movement and opportunity dividing
two
> contestants in a battle-and damn few where everything was equal.
Yes, but as we have agreed, realism is an unattainable goal. Or is realism
only to be used to support, but never indict, your rules?
> Does the flow of impetus get widely unbalanced? On occasion it can, and
this is
> what adds reality and tension to deployments, plans, and the nature of
> concentrated attacks.
And also gives a significant advantage to one player -- all due to luck?
> The behavior of units on the table in PK is FAR closer to
> those we read about in battle reports than the Move-counter-move, two-step
with
> its imposed equality.
Ah, the "realism can only be used to justify my rules, but not question
them" tactic again. Sorry, such a double standard is indefensible and is
rejected. Got any better arguments? Other than "Bob is brilliant Bob is
brilliant Bob is brilliant Bob is brilliant"
> >2. Does PK's system allow this to happen in theory?
>
> BJ: Yes, but, <snip of realism justification/double standard>
> >3. Would it happen at least once every 2 games on the average?
>
> BJ: No. Most impetus differences on any given intiative throw average
5.5 with
> both sides having EXACTLY a 50% chance of winning. Go read a book on
randomness
> and probability.
Oh, I'd just rather bask in the glow of your brilliance Bob. Go read a book
on logic and persuasion sometime. You could use it.
> Piquet, in effect, relies on mathematics to impose the order
> and degree of action, not a set 'u-go/I go' structure.
So what?
> >If these questions are all answered "yes", then about half of your games
> >boil down to "who draws the best card?"
>
> BJ: You can sound so knowledgable for someone that has NO first-hand
> experience.
Well, I was relying on your answers to make my conclusion. You can read?
> As I noted above-the determination of who goes, and the degree of
> his actions, are NOT determined by cards. The effectivenmess of a
player's
> actions taken are directly related to his skill in applying that energy
within
> his move sequence-which is randomized by the cards.
You said: "The closest equivalent in PK is a 'phase'
made up of 20 impetus that are apportioned by die roll, not card draw."
So, the dice determine how many actions you get? It seems to me that if I
roll high and you roll low, I'll have a big advantage that turn, no?
And if this happens early in the game, I may well get to maul you so badly
that you can't recover, yes?
And in this case, I will have essentially won the game because I rolled
better, no?
I think I liked the cards better.
> A turn ends by either a duplicate die roll-indicating a 'collapse' of all
> available time-a pause in the battle, or that units on both sides did
little
> within that 'time' span, or by one of the armies going completely through
their
> sequence(used all their cards)-NO CARD ENDS A TURN.
Cards, dice, who cares? The duration of your turns, as well as the
apportionment of actions within the turns is determined randomly, it sounds
like.
Congratulations. You seem to have found a way to randomize every facet of
your game. Not particularly difficult or ingenious -- but different. Me, I'd
probably prefer Yahtzee. It sounds like it requires more skill.
> >Well, since the discussion is turning more and more to a specific
discussion
> >on PK, I'm gonna have to buy the game. It's a hard way to make a sale,
I'd
> >think.
> >
> >--Ty Beard
> >
> BJ: Ty, two things:
>
> 1. I don't need your sale.
>
> 2. It ain't free!
Oh Bob, that really hurts.
And sadly, it ain't in 4 different large game stores in the Dallas/Ft. Worth
area. In fact, no one knew what it was when I asked today. You do sell this
game right?
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> >You misunderstand what I mean by "playing general". I want to play with
toy
> >soldiers and match wits against my opponents. The rest is mere chrome.
>
> There (in the interchange quoted above), I think, lies the crux of the
matter.
Really, Patrick, I don't think this is the problem. If you like games that
do blah blah, then I have no problem with that. I'm reasonable enough to
understand that taste and competence are unrelated. So are you.
But others -- the designer of PK for instance -- are too stupid and
egotistical to realize that a reasonable, competent and intelligent person
could possibly have tastes different from his. Like a religious fanatic, our
boy Bob confuses what he likes with what is *best* -- as though that were an
objective term in a gaming context. And when reasonable criticisms are
levied at his ideas, he patronizes and condescends and tries to gutlessly
infer that "smart people" agree with him. This is problem number 1. He is a
twit -- in every sense of the word and like several others in this group, I
have grown weary of his self-serving pretentiousness.
The second problem is that I don't find that the evidence supports Bob's
absurd notion that randomizing most aspects of the game turn is The Greatest
Thing Since Sliced Bread. Nor do I agree that increasing the uncertainty
level in a *game* is necessarily a Good, Desirable and Superior Thing.
If you like PK, then play it. It's okay with me. I'm old enough to know that
some perfectly nice people don't like country music for instance. But
arguing that these variable whatever systems are inherently superior to
fixed systems is like arguing that rock music is inherently superior to
country music. Yet Bob makes a comparable ridiculous assertion in every
post.
I plan to play PK, if I can find a store that actually stocks it. Heck I
might even like it. We'll see.
> ...I myself still
> think it's pretty cool that in DBA I can't move *all* my elements each
turn,
> and that it's because of a die roll that simulates "friction" or
limitations on
> command & control. Somehow that little detail just grabs my imagination
and
> makes the game seem a bit more realistic to me.
Or more fun?
> Evidently, Piquet takes that to another level and makes much more of
it--and
> lots of wargamers love it.
*Some* anyhow. I've read a great deal of criticism about the game as well.
> Even without playing the game, I can understand
> why: it's a reasonably simple mechanism which puts a new twist on the
> experience of wargaming and can aid our "suspension of disbelief"--which
in
> turn leads to the vicarious enjoyment of generalship.
But randomizing all aspects of the turn like Bob describes seems just as
artificial to me as a fixed turn system. And no one has yet made a
convincing case to me that these mechanics don't increase the role of luck
in a game -- a Bad Thing to my tastes. I'll play it (if I can find it) and
see for myself.
> In short, as we all know, it's really just a matter of taste.
Yup.
> Once I became disillusioned about that, a number of years ago, I
personally
> turned to simpler games.
Yes. Once I made peace with the Demon of Realism, I was able to enjoy games.
I could simply delete obnoxious "realistic" mechanics without guilt and get
on with playing the game.
And I reject "realism" as the main justification for *any* mechanic.
> I used to like games with complicated mechanics and
> scads of detail. But I had more time back then, and I also wanted to
believe
> wargames were truly realistic. Now that I've decided wargames are really
just
> imagination stimulators, I can have just as much fun with a simple,
fast-moving
> game.
Me too. "Imagination Simulators" -- I like that term.
> Still, there's something to be said for innovations like Piquet. If the
game
> you've been playing has started to seem dry or begun to lose its
credibility,
> an innovative system might be just the ticket to get you "back in the
groove"
> again.
If you like it, then play the hell out of it.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> Ty Beard <tbe...@tyler.net> wrote in article
> > Oh yes there is. The pressure of *time* was the greatest pressure on
> > historical commanders. Many bad decisions were made because the
> commanders
> > didn't have the luxury of pondering their options. Now who's the control
> > freak?
>
> preferences being a matter of personal opinion and taste.
>
> I DETEST timed games. Most of my jobs over the years have involved
> deadlines, and I am not going to spend my leisure time with a damned
> officious referee standing over me with a stopwatch. That ain't fun. If
> that's the kind of gaming going on, I'll just leave and go bowling.
Exactly. This happens to be my opinion and preference only.
So if you play any of my games, please feel free to just ignore the time
limits. Anything to save you from bowling!
--Ty Beard
Raymond Rangel
>
This is probably the most important statement in this whole thread.
I like games that:
1. Produce the intended results (be they historical or Hollywood as in
TSATF)
2. Challenge the players
The mechanics is the games that I like vary widely. I love DBA, PoW, and
NPoW. They produce results that are believable and have mechanics that not
only challenge the player's tactical ability, but his ability to maintain
command and control (limited PIPs). I love playing TSATF it produces the
results that I expect and challenges the player's ability to overcome
terrain uncertainties (variable movement rates) and the loss of key leaders
during the battles. I have recently downloaded Ty's Fist Full of TOWs and am
champing at the bit to try this game out. Very little is random in this
game, but considering the era, very little would be. It looks to be a very
challenging tactical game.
Uncertainty and randomness exist in almost all war games. How they applied
in the mechanic will determine the result. Different games do it in
different ways and are quite successful in accomplishing their goals.
Different games are played at different scales so *what* events randomly
occur will be different. For instance, in a skirmish game, a leader's loss
might freeze a unit for turn. However, if a single stand represents a
brigade or regiment, the loss of an officer might go unnoticed. By the same
token, TSATF uses variable movement rates to represent uneven ground and
other things that might slow down movement...but the figure to man ratio is
1:1. PoW, on the otherhand, has constant movement rates (the units are
companies or regiments) because at that scale a small ravine is in the
noise.
Another way to look at the issue is to examine how you like to play. Is the
process of the game important? Is getting the right results at the end of
the game? Both? I suppose it depends on the player's personality and whether
he thinks the mechanics are suitable for the scale and objectives of rules.
Dave Burnett
<russ...@iafrica.com> wrote:
> I believe that those whose lives and minds best understand how
> war happens, or rather, what the "shape of the pattern" is so to speak,
> would naturally design more realistic games.
> I disagree that wargaming can't be realistic. It's just that the degree of
You are quite right about the difference between realism and
simulation. QA wargame bears little or no relationship to actual combat.
I am a combat veteran (a year in Viet Nam with the 1st Marine Division)
and 30 year wargaming veteran. The only way to approximate "realism" is a
complex double blind game in which the commanders work from maps and are
separated from each other with limited communications and severe time
pressures. Periodic interruptions of the communications should take place
and the lights should occasionally go out. Perhaps a huge sweaty gorilla
standing beside each player to rip his ear off if he made a mistake (or
just got unlucky) would add to the "realism".
This would somewhat reflect the "real" pressures of combat... But it
probably wouldn't be much fun.
Playing with toy soldiers should be fun and the outcomes of games
should reflect reality as much as possible. If my heavy cavalry hits your
exposed flank while you are in the process of changing formation, you
should die. Random events are not completely a bad thing but if carried
to excess, they can remove the skill element from a game. If you want to
spend your time and energy reacting to random events instead of your
opponents.. fine. If you want to measure your tactical skill against your
opponent instead of the cards, or dice, or whatever... Great!
Personally, I prefer the latter... but that's just MY preference. If a
group of players prefers a system which, through random chance,
distributes the victories more uniformly throughout the group, regardless
of skill or experience.. Fine.
But what we all should remember is this... It's a game. Play how you
want to. Innovation for innovation's sake is not useful or praiseworthy
unless it improves the fun players have.
Anyway (and for whatever it's worth) that's MY opinion.
Dave
Ty Beard
> > If you like it, then play the hell out of it.
> >
>
> This is probably the most important statement in this whole thread.
Agreed. Bob could end the arguments by halting the incessant "you just don't
get it" retorts and simply stating "I like PK and enjoy playing it. It has
systems that I think are fun and that's why I designed it." There is no
reasonable reply to that statement except "then play the hell out of it."
It's when personal matters of taste are confused with THE BEST WAY that it
gets adversarial. And if someone is gonna tell me (or unsubtly imply) that
I'm stupid (or inexperienced or a control freak) for preferring a different
*game* mechanic, then I'll object. Strenuously. And eventually start
shooting back.
> I like games that:
>
> 1. Produce the intended results (be they historical or Hollywood as in
> TSATF)
I'm calling this "plausibility". In general, I want game units to be about
as tough as the units they're portraying.
> 2. Challenge the players
Yes.
> The mechanics is the games that I like vary widely. I love DBA, PoW, and
> NPoW. They produce results that are believable and have mechanics that not
> only challenge the player's tactical ability, but his ability to maintain
> command and control (limited PIPs).
I like DBA okay -- but I do find it a little "dry". What's PoW and NPoW?
> I love playing TSATF it produces the
> results that I expect and challenges the player's ability to overcome
> terrain uncertainties (variable movement rates) and the loss of key
leaders
> during the battles. I have recently downloaded Ty's Fist Full of TOWs and
am
> champing at the bit to try this game out. Very little is random in this
> game, but considering the era, very little would be. It looks to be a very
> challenging tactical game.
Let me know how you like it!
> Uncertainty and randomness exist in almost all war games.
Yes.
> Another way to look at the issue is to examine how you like to play. Is
the
> process of the game important? Is getting the right results at the end of
> the game? Both? I suppose it depends on the player's personality and
whether
> he thinks the mechanics are suitable for the scale and objectives of
rules.
Yes. And, I might add, what's fun.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
news:37d1e760...@news.igs.net...
> rjo...@rmi.net wrote:
>
> >BJ: No. Most impetus differences on any given intiative throw average
5.5 with
> >both sides having EXACTLY a 50% chance of winning. Go read a book on
randomness
order
> >and degree of action, not a set 'u-go/I go' structure.
>
> therefore the baseline will be different in a statistically
> significant number of cases. Is a game still good if one side or the
> other has a lucky streak of rolls? Piquet has a statistically
> significant probablility of allowing one player a series of moves
> without reply from the other player.
And I suspect that the result will be severe misfortune for the other
player. If this is so, and if your statement is correct, then a significant
number of PK games will be decided by luck -- simply because one player gets
to do more than he should and the other player gets to do less than he
should. It seems to be a variant of the "draw a chit to move" systems and
may well share the same vulnerablities. And that is my problem with such
systems.
Thanks for clarifying it so well.
--Ty Beard
rjo...@rmi.net
<<snip>>
And I notice, Mr. "I'm a Network TV Exec" that
>you seem to have plenty of time as well. What is your real job? Other than
>being a twit.
BJ: Responding to malinformed rhetoricians, it seems...(sigh...)
>
>Of course, yesterday was a reward for finishing a case -- I took the day
>off. Sad I guess, that I should spend it arguing with you.
BJ: Did you win? Was the miscreant hanged, drawn and quartered?
>And as I have said, I have not played PK. It could be the Holy Grail. But
>your hapless "defense" -- if your self-serving drivel can be described as
>such -- of its systems make me question whether I should even bother.
BJ: Ty, I believe that it is you that are in a bit of a rut, and a bit of a
Johnny one-note. I will admit writing meaningful responses to someone that is
ignorant of the facts is a very difficult task.
>> >Playing a game between 2 similar and equal armies, will I
>> >cripple you if I get to move the equivalent of 3 average turns before you
>> >do?
>>
>> BJ: No, you will not.
>
>Do you seriously suggest that it is not a significant advantage to
>move/shoot/etc., 3 times more than average? And to do it all before my
>opponent does?
BJ: If you mean by "signifigant advantage" that it prejudices the game to a
degree that one player is certain to win, and that that occurence is more
decisive than, say, rolling the best possible combat outcome in your design-the
answer is, within the PK construct, it's not necessarily all that decisive.
>
>> Can some armies move a considerable number of their troops a goodly
>distance?
>> Sure. Does one commander always move like a Tango dance partner-step for
>step
>> ABSOLUTELY identically to its' adversary? NO!
>>
>> Ty I can find many examples of UNEQUAL movement and opportunity dividing
>two
>> contestants in a battle-and damn few where everything was equal.
>
>Yes, but as we have agreed, realism is an unattainable goal. Or is realism
>only to be used to support, but never indict, your rules?
BJ: If also agree that any HISTORICAL wargame must be constructed to reflect
some aspects of war's reality, then it can be said that aiming at that goal, and
in, particularly, in the areas of the design focus, one could model those
effects in a superior fashion compared to some other designs and in innovative
ways.
Fantasy games are judged on different bases than historical games and relieved
of this requirement.
><<snip>>
>> The behavior of units on the table in PK is FAR closer to
>> those we read about in battle reports than the Move-counter-move, two-step
>with
>> its imposed equality.
>
>Ah, the "realism can only be used to justify my rules, but not question
>them" tactic again. Sorry, such a double standard is indefensible and is
>rejected. Got any better arguments? Other than "Bob is brilliant Bob is
>brilliant Bob is brilliant Bob is brilliant"
BJ: How about Ty is brilliant?...nah, nobody would buy that! Any defense of the
MCM that allows anyone to accept it's constructs? Just curious...
>
<<snip>>
>So, the dice determine how many actions you get? It seems to me that if I
>roll high and you roll low, I'll have a big advantage that turn, no?
BJ: Perhaps, perhaps not. Depends on the battlefield circumstances, the quality
of your command, how many impetus are left in the phase,where you are in the
turn sequence, where the enemy's sequence stands, your intentions and actions,
etc. In short, it depends on a player's skill and game circumstances.
Rather like asking if three of a kind are guaranteed to win the big pot of cash
in your poker game.
>
>And if this happens early in the game, I may well get to maul you so badly
>that you can't recover, yes?
>
>And in this case, I will have essentially won the game because I rolled
>better, no?
BJ: It would be surprising if the advocates of this system found a single high
roll deciding a game being very entertaining! Must be something more to
it...ah, but then, they are very familiar with the game and you are, as usual,
just tossing around accusations and unfounded criticisms. For one so vocal
about logic and rhetoric you seem rather loose with both.
No one die roll can determine the outcome of a PK game
>
>> A turn ends by either a duplicate die roll-indicating a 'collapse' of all
>> available time-a pause in the battle, or that units on both sides did
>little
>> within that 'time' span, or by one of the armies going completely through
>their
>> sequence(used all their cards)-NO CARD ENDS A TURN.
>
>Cards, dice, who cares? The duration of your turns, as well as the
>apportionment of actions within the turns is determined randomly, it sounds
>like.
BJ: Just like time occurs in real life, where the exact number of events,
actions, distance covered, and activities seems to vary within any given time
period and are NOT constants. Time is the constant! The duration of a turn
in game terms is not truly the 'length' of time, but an indication of what
happened within that defined time span.
In PK, each turn is 1/2 hour, but a wide range of activities, and a different
mix of actions by both sides may occur within that time period. That is what is
represented.
>
>Congratulations. You seem to have found a way to randomize every facet of
>your game. Not particularly difficult or ingenious -- but different. Me, I'd
>probably prefer Yahtzee. It sounds like it requires more skill.
BJ: "Ty, you ignorant slut!" as they would say on Saturday Night
Live-Randomization says nothing about skill, chance, or Yahtzee. Please
remember, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
>
<<snip>>
>And sadly, it ain't in 4 different large game stores in the Dallas/Ft. Worth
>area. In fact, no one knew what it was when I asked today. You do sell this
>game right?
>
BJ: Ty, I lived for Five years in Dallas/Ft. Worth in the early 90s and the
local hobby shops there are a very poor indicator of what's available to
wargamers. It is a relatively weak miniature wargame retail market. Austin is
better; so's Houston. Never could figure out why Dallas was so lame in terms of
miniature wargame retailers.
We have concentrated on internet sales in order to increase our profits and
capital and allow the publication of the supplements, scenario books, and rule
variant books, but are now being stocked by Brookhurst, Last Square, Attactix
and other large stores, and intend to expand our store distribution network in
99-2000.
Thanks for confirming I was not only right about your being a tax lawyer, but
from a Southern City-I did miss on the size! (Or are you really from Plano or
Flower Mound?)
And so it goes......
BJ
rjo...@rmi.net
>
>Jay <mjma...@suicideking.igs.net> wrote in message
>news:37d1e760...@news.igs.net...
>> rjo...@rmi.net wrote:
>>
>> >BJ: No. Most impetus differences on any given intiative throw average
>5.5 with
>> >both sides having EXACTLY a 50% chance of winning. Go read a book on
>randomness
>> >and probability. Piquet, in effect, relies on mathematics to impose the
>order
>> >and degree of action, not a set 'u-go/I go' structure.
>>
>> The problem is that every throw of the dice has the same probablility,
>> therefore the baseline will be different in a statistically
>> significant number of cases. Is a game still good if one side or the
>> other has a lucky streak of rolls? Piquet has a statistically
>> significant probablility of allowing one player a series of moves
>> without reply from the other player.
BJ: I've played several hundred games and other gamers on the mailer have
played hundreds more, and have there been some unbalanced games?-Yes, but they
are relatively rare and most confirmed gamers have ceased to see this as a
signifigant problem.
As I said earlier we have run hundreds of computer runs on this issue and since
there are usually 3-4 turns minimum in Piquet, and each turn is an average of
3-4 "phases" and each Phase is 3-4 impetus rolls you can see that there will be
a minimum of 30-60 rolls in a given game apportioning 180+ impetus, each roll is
a 50/50 chance and how this is used substantially affects the effect of the
impetus("opportunity" dissapates or increases intrinsic value as does the
"skill" in application)
The fact is, that Poker is a good game, and some nights the cards do just fall
right and the Gomer wins(it happens in war,too!)-but that, too, is VERY rare.
Skill and experience wins. Bet on it.
>
>And I suspect that the result will be severe misfortune for the other
>player. If this is so, and if your statement is correct, then a significant
>number of PK games will be decided by luck -- simply because one player gets
>to do more than he should and the other player gets to do less than he
>should. It seems to be a variant of the "draw a chit to move" systems and
>may well share the same vulnerablities. And that is my problem with such
>systems.
>
BJ: Ty, right now there are several hundred gamers on our mailer that have a
strong familarity with the game, and seem to not agree with the above statement.
They know what the game does and how it works. You don't. You lack any
knowledge of the thing you criticize. You are wrong. But don't let that stop
you...
BJ
rjo...@rmi.net
>
>Raymond Rangel <ray.r...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7qsnh7
>> > If you like it, then play the hell out of it.
>> >
>
>get it" retorts and simply stating "I like PK and enjoy playing it. It has
>systems that I think are fun and that's why I designed it." There is no
>reasonable reply to that statement except "then play the hell out of it."
BJ: Thank you, I will!
>
>It's when personal matters of taste are confused with THE BEST WAY that it
>gets adversarial. And if someone is gonna tell me (or unsubtly imply) that
>I'm stupid (or inexperienced or a control freak) for preferring a different
>*game* mechanic, then I'll object. Strenuously. And eventually start
>shooting back.
BJ: Even when you are unclear as to what you are accepting or rejecting in a
design? Seems like knowing what you are reacting to would be an initial
requirement for judgment.
As for "eventually" shooting back, I'd say you have a hair trigger, and a
machine gun keyboard!
One More E-Mail and I'm within a dozen of Ty! What a race! What a competitor!
He doesn't like to lose, does he???!!! He's even given up move-counter-move in
his e-mails and is trying to post three times to my one!
Is he a closet PK player? Have we subliminally won a convert?
BJ :-)
rjo...@rmi.net
says...
<<snip>>
>
>But with the Up Front (and Piquet, if I'm not mistaken) system, the designer is
>telling players, "Normally such-and-such could happen during this unit of time,
>but we're going to say that because of 'battlefield circumstances' you can't do
>that in the game this turn; instead you can only do one of these other things."
BJ: Actually, that is not what the theory proposes, but, rather, that within a
"turn" one side will usually complete all of its sequence( I should comment that
the cards are simply a range of activities that could be put in another design
into a fixed sequence-items like infantry move in open, Cavalry move in class
III/IV terrain, Artillery move, etc.) he and the enemy simply will not know
either of their sequence order and, in fact, their decks may not have the same
elements.
The decks and rules are VERY easy to tweak.
Please check out the theory article at http://www.piquet.com; articles on
http://www.piquet.org, which will also supply U.K., Australian, and Solo Game
sites, as well as eay entry to the PK Mailer with over 250 subscribers.
If you are a member of Magweb, use the search engine to check out over 100
articles on the system, its math, and other issues.
Issue 46 of First Empire and 120 of Lone Warrior had excellent articles on the
rules.
>
<<snip>>
One has to wonder where the designer came up with
>what's on the cards. Are they the result of historical research, or just
>imagination or whimsy?
BJ: All three.
>
<<snip>>
It's harder to alter the customized
>deck of cards.
BJ: Nope, quite easy, and encouraged! An upcoming supplement is going to be new
"optional" cards supplied by players worldwide.
<<snip>>
>Offhand, it does sound like a move in a good direction. But it's also likely
>to be unsettling to those who've long depended on solid time-and-motion
>connections with historical events to define "realism."
>
>(End of my rambling for tonite.)
BJ: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I would only add that the "solid" time and
motion, and their connection to historical events is also open to a whole new
thread!
BJ
rjo...@rmi.net
sham...@gower.net says...
Random events are not completely a bad thing but if carried
>to excess, they can remove the skill element from a game. If you want to
>spend your time and energy reacting to random events instead of your
>opponents.. fine. If you want to measure your tactical skill against your
>opponent instead of the cards, or dice, or whatever... Great!
> Personally, I prefer the latter... but that's just MY preference. If a
>group of players prefers a system which, through random chance,
>distributes the victories more uniformly throughout the group, regardless
>of skill or experience.. Fine.
BJ: Dave, my only comment is that I don't think those are opposed poles-that
chance and "tactical" skill, or historicity are at odds and conflicting.
> But what we all should remember is this... It's a game. Play how you
>want to. Innovation for innovation's sake is not useful or praiseworthy
>unless it improves the fun players have.
> Anyway (and for whatever it's worth) that's MY opinion.
>
>Dave
BJ: Dave, if it ain't fun to the minds of wargamers-a game won't be played, and
certainly won't be purchased. The matter will take care of itself.
Mitch Osborne
> > make the decision process stressful or to make them move in real time.
>
> historical commanders. Many bad decisions were made because the
commanders
> didn't have the luxury of pondering their options. Now who's the control
> freak?
I think this is an excellent example of what Ty was saying about game
preferences being a matter of personal opinion and taste.
I DETEST timed games. Most of my jobs over the years have involved
deadlines, and I am not going to spend my leisure time with a damned
officious referee standing over me with a stopwatch. That ain't fun. If
that's the kind of gaming going on, I'll just leave and go bowling.
Regards,
Mitch Osborne
Jay
>But given your desire to 'play general', it is significant. For me, I
>wanna play general just as close to how the big boys play it as possible
>(short of standing next to a firing cannon for a few hours). If that
>means playing a game where there are all sorts of things out of my
>control, so be it.
If you REALLY want to play general, you have to do a number of things
that even PK doesn't do. I recommend trying some professional military
simulations (yeah, I know Bob isn't too keen on them, but...), if you
aren't too bored, you may actually get a feel for what a real general
has to deal with.
Jay
>BJ: No. Most impetus differences on any given intiative throw average 5.5 with
>both sides having EXACTLY a 50% chance of winning. Go read a book on randomness
>and probability. Piquet, in effect, relies on mathematics to impose the order
>and degree of action, not a set 'u-go/I go' structure.
The problem is that every throw of the dice has the same probablility,
therefore the baseline will be different in a statistically
significant number of cases. Is a game still good if one side or the
other has a lucky streak of rolls? Piquet has a statistically
significant probablility of allowing one player a series of moves
without reply from the other player.
Is it realistic? perhaps. Is it fun for everyone? Probably not. Is it
"realistic?" No more than any other mechanism.
Jay
>You are incapable of rationed discourse. Actually I lie...as long as we
>understand that rationed, by YOUR standards means : "Rationalising that
>which I want to be the truth".
>By MY standards, and I suspect BJs and most logical people, 'rationed' is
>generally used to mean "following the rules of logic".
Carrying a grudge there laddy?
By my standards, and I suspect those of most users of the English
language, "rationed" means "distributed in a controlled manner." Yeah,
I reserve the spelling flames for the truly simple.
Patrick Carroll
>a margin of error in other words, and this is precisely what rolling a die
>that has had modifiers applied does. It creates a general area of
>probability within certain limits.
>I don't see that either system negates a certain amount of randomness. So
>how are they different?
According to H. G. Welles (author of "Little Wars," which was first published
in the 1880s, IIRC), they're different because in a game, randomizers like
dice, spinners, drawn cards, etc. constitute a separate level of abstraction
(i.e., "Let's roll the die, factor in the modifiers, and check the result
against a chart to see what's *supposed* to have happened."). Welles's toy
cannon, in contrast, made things *actually* happen: his miniatures game,
Little Wars, involved lining up toy soldiers and shooting at them with the
cannons, scoring points for knocking enemy soldiers down.
This phenomenon had not died out by 1972, btw (and it probably hasn't died out
even today). At a convention I attended that year, one group played a
1/32-scale armor game on the grass (the con was in a park, outdoors), and they
used rubber-band guns to simulate the tanks' shooting at each other. Around
the same year, I read a little article in The General by a player of the game
"Jutland": he didn't like the dice rolls, so he devised a system of shooting
at ship sillhouettes with a rubber-band gun.
To answer your question, I don't know if the randomness is really any
different. My point was just that historically, not all notable wargamers have
valued dice & drawn cards (or unpredictable games with limited control and
plenty of randomness or luck). This was in reply to Bob's remark that Don
Featherstone, et al, do prefer that sort of game.
Welles seems to have wanted *more* control over what happened in the game, so
he used cannons he could aim and shoot at the enemy.
And in the war-college game I alluded to (but whose name & date I've
forgotten--but it was mentioned in Peter Perla's book on the history of
wargaming), a resident expert adjudicated all the moves. A player would move
his cavalry around a flank, and the expert--having perhaps seen flanking
attacks by cavalry on a real battlefield--decides what happens in the game and
lets players know. (Come to think of it, I played a brief "game" like this at
Fort Lewis, WA, during a summer training in 1976. An officer pointed out
positions on a sandtable and asked me where I'd place my recoilless rifle; then
he explained why it'd be best in such-and-such a position.)
Dice (and sometimes cards) have become such an integral part of wargaming that
we sometimes forget they weren't always considered essential.
Patrick
A couple domino sites I've enjoyed:
General info & links:
http://xs4all.nl/~spaanszt/Domino_Plaza.html
Windows downloads & more:
http://members.aol.com/DominoPage/
Patrick Carroll
>Have you ever reflected that the tit-for-tat models is
>monstrously off-target in portraying any historical battle, but that
>familarity
>with its' mechanics has led gamers to accept it as a reasonable model of
>time?
Familiarity with the mechanic is part of it. When one plays any board game, he
(consciously or unconsciously) wants the game to hark back to checkers or
chess, or maybe backgammon. U-go/I-go is a classic board-game tradition that's
so deeply ingrained that it's hard to break free of. And furthermore, lots of
folks *like* it and don't want to break free of it.
But besides attachment to tradition, I think there's more to it. For one
thing, many efforts to get away from alternating movement have proven to be
more trouble than they're worth.
With simultaneous movement, players have to write down all their orders, and
then a gamemaster has to figure out who does what when forces run into each
other. Some rules then took a step back and introduced "split moves"--where
fast-moving units had to stop in mid-move and get shot at before they could
continue. That was also irritating for many players.
Impulse movement (a la The Sword and the Flame, or AH's Firepower, Ambush, et
al) seems to work reasonably well. At least players don't have to write down
orders or do anything as silly as stopping mid-move to get shot at. The only
drawback is that the whole turn became fragmented, requiring players to stand
back and take an overview to piece together what's really happening. Some
players don't mind that; for others it's irritating.
Then comes the Piquet system, which, based on my cursory assessment, is akin to
the likes of Up Front. Here, the *type* of action a player can take is often
determined by a handful of randomly-drawn cards. It's a very interesting
concept, and I think it can make for a very enjoyable game. But to me, it
demands a higher degree of trust in the game designer.
With alternating movement, simultaneous movement, split moves, or impulse
movement, it was always just a matter of subdividing a unit of time. No one is
going to argue about time passing during a battle; it does. If the Cold Harbor
assaults lasted 20 minutes, a game about Cold Harbor must cover 20 minutes of
real time; and we'll grant the designer "poetic license" to tell us how many of
those minutes each game-turn represents, as long as he scales everything else
accordingly. And if he wants to split game-turns up into smaller phases,
that's fine too--as long as there's still a clear connection between game-time
and real-time.
But with the Up Front (and Piquet, if I'm not mistaken) system, the designer is
telling players, "Normally such-and-such could happen during this unit of time,
but we're going to say that because of 'battlefield circumstances' you can't do
that in the game this turn; instead you can only do one of these other things."
On some level, that makes perfect sense. And once you're into the game, it
seems realistic enough. But it's a big jump to trust that the set of cards a
player has really reflects the set of options his side would really have had in
the historical battle. One has to wonder where the designer came up with
what's on the cards. Are they the result of historical research, or just
imagination or whimsy?
I think this is the point where suspicion arises. It's not just that the
impetus/card system of Piquet flies in the face of tradition (though that's
part of it for some people). It's more that players are asked to make a jump
from games where hard data is pretty much just scaled down to conform to a
tabletop game, and this new type of game where not-so-hard data is printed on
cards that supposedly reflect "historical possibilities."
In truth, such "not-so-hard data" has worked its way into wargames all along.
But up to now it has been confined to the rulebook--and players can always
change any rules they don't believe in. It's harder to alter the customized
deck of cards. If you don't like the interpretations the designer has
"engraved in stone" on the cards, you're SOL: you have to take the game or
leave it (or design your own cards).
IMHO, that's the key objection that's likely to be raised about Piquet (or the
unsettled feeling that many of those who don't care for the game may be unable
to quite put their finger on): It's a departure from the old paradigm that a
wargame is essentially just a time-and-motion study of battle in game form.
The "old school" says that the designer is supposed to just scale down the
hard, verified data, fix it into a segmented time-frame, and construct a
mechanism that enables players to operate the resultant model as a game. The
Piquet school says, "No, I don't want to be restricted to a fixed time-frame; I
want to shift the focus to the *actions* (and reactions) that can be
performed--considering all the unpredictable conditions that might typically
prevail on a battlefield."
SDLeetes
>> Firstly, these are events outside of the normal mechanics of the game,
>> which makes them somewhat 'artificial' in terms of the simulation being
>> discussed.
Ty wrote:
>No more "artificial" that using cards to end the game turn.
My point was that the card deck is a part of the game design, and thus
discussion of cards is relevant to assessing the design. Players forgetting to
move units or running out of time are not part of the design (I hope!), and
thus are not relevant to discussing the game design.
Me again:
>> Secondly, there's no need to put a real clock ticking on some games to
>> make the decision process stressful or to make them move in real time.
Ty:
>Oh yes there is. The pressure of *time* was the greatest pressure on
>historical commanders. Many bad decisions were made because the commanders
>didn't have the luxury of pondering their options. Now who's the control
>freak?
Hmmm... I can't respond to this in any way other than to say there's nothing
low-stress about PK. Nobody ever takes more than a few seconds to move. You
just don't have the time to sit and ponder the situation. Either you're doing
something or the enemy is, and in either case you'd better be paying attention.
I can't say that PK plays in real time, because the amount of time ascribed to
a 'turn' seems pretty artificial to me. Beyond that, the amount of time that
you spend each time you win the impetus is so small, that if you added a clock
you'd spend an irritatingly large amount of your game time setting the clock.
All I can say is, you have to play it to understand why a clock wouldn't
work....
Ty:
>1. If we're playing a game between 2 similar and equal armies, will I
>cripple you if I get to move the equivalent of 3 average turns before you
>do?
Actually, no. Well, not unless I've done something stupid to leave a flank
totally open - but then I deserve it, no?
Others have described how the impetus works, and hopefully it's clear that the
distribution really does fall on a 50-50 basis during the course of a whole
game. You'll also realize that a single side can have long runs of impetus.
These _can_ be decisive, if they come at the right time, and the player who is
the beneficiary of the impetus run plays well, and if the player who doesn't
get the impetus plays badly. Most of the time they are not decisive, even
though that may sound surprising. I've found that one of the easiest ways to
wreck your army and lose the battle is to attack. Seems that attackers in this
game can really take a beating. Imagine that! Another part of it is the fact
that you only know you have a long run of impetus after it's over. It's
impossible to know that you'll win 6 or 8 impetus die rolls in a row before
hand, and hence players tend to act with a certain amount of caution. You
can't afford to just throw your boys out there, because you never know when
they'll get to move again, or if the enemy will crush them first. You just
can't know that you'll get that 3:1 advantage - you can't know that you'll act
before the enemy does...
>2. Does PK's system allow this to happen in theory?
>
>3. Would it happen at least once every 2 games on the average?
Yes, this can happen in PK, and as for frequency, I don't know. BTW, one word
of warning: if you do get a long run of impetus such that you get a 3:1
advantage, you'd _better_ deliver a killing blow, because the other side's run
of luck is coming... happens every time.
>If these questions are all answered "yes", then about half of your games
>boil down to "who draws the best card?"
If I had to guess, I'd bet that the number of PK games that have turned on a
card would be insignificantly small. You might be surprised to learn that in
the course of most post game discussions, a critical fire or melee resolution
is considered a major factor, which sounds a bit like history to me. BTW, we
resolve both of those with dice - no cards up anyone's sleeve.
>Well, since the discussion is turning more and more to a specific discussion
>on PK, I'm gonna have to buy the game. It's a hard way to make a sale, I'd
>think.
Well, you could just come over for a game and try it out at a much lower
cost... ;)
Tom
SDLeetes
>The problem is that every throw of the dice has the same probablility,
>therefore the baseline will be different in a statistically
>significant number of cases. Is a game still good if one side or the
>other has a lucky streak of rolls? Piquet has a statistically
>significant probablility of allowing one player a series of moves
>without reply from the other player.
Yes, one player can get a long run of _impetus_, but that doesn't mean the
other player is totally inactive. Each side has a certain number of
'opportunity chips' that can be played under certain conditions to allow the
'inactive' player to fire, issue morale challenges, or even execute cavalry
charges. So even if the enemy has a long run of impetus, you still have means
to mess with what he's doing. And one of the keys to good play is deciding
when and how to use those opportunity chips. So even though one player gets a
long run of impetus, the other player, though good play, can stop the attack
cold. What you'll find from playing the game is that the important decisions
are things like what unit to fire and when, or what units to move, or when to
send in the cav. What other games force you to decide whether or not you
should fire? In every other game I play, you fire every unit in range every
turn. In PK, you have to save your fire for the right moment or you're
screwed.
Sorry if I'm babbling. My point is, who wins the impetus is rather
insignificant in determining the winner of the game. What you decide to do
with the impetus you get is what wins the game.
>
>Is it realistic? perhaps. Is it fun for everyone? Probably not.
I can't say for anyone else, but for me, win or lose, it's the most fun game
I've played. Why? Because I never find myself looking around the room and
waiting for the other player to finish what he's doing. Each event, each move,
each fire, either involved me making a roll or pondering a counter move.
There's no such thing as waiting even 5 minutes for the enemy to finish moving
before you need to start thinking again. You always need to be thinking.
Tom
SDLeetes
>
>But with the Up Front (and Piquet, if I'm not mistaken) system, the designer
>is
>telling players, "Normally such-and-such could happen during this unit of
>time,
>but we're going to say that because of 'battlefield circumstances' you can't
>do
>that in the game this turn; instead you can only do one of these other
>things."
>
>On some level, that makes perfect sense. And once you're into the game, it
>seems realistic enough. But it's a big jump to trust that the set of cards a
>player has really reflects the set of options his side would really have had
>in
>the historical battle. One has to wonder where the designer came up with
>what's on the cards. Are they the result of historical research, or just
>imagination or whimsy?
But here's the thing: the card decks are not set in stone. The player, in
designing the scenario, has license to change them to reflect the
characteristics and abilities of the army. There are numerous optional cards
that may be added. And the decks change during the play of the game as well.
So the question of whether the deck is accurately reflective of history is
largely up to the designer of the scenario: you.
Tom
Ty Beard
news:19990905032251.08449.00001873@ng-
> Sorry if I'm babbling. My point is, who wins the impetus is rather
> insignificant in determining the winner of the game. What you decide to
do
> with the impetus you get is what wins the game.
> I can't say for anyone else, but for me, win or lose, it's the most fun
game
> I've played.
Then play the hell out of it.
> There's no such thing as waiting even 5 minutes for the enemy to finish
moving
> before you need to start thinking again. You always need to be thinking.
In my opinion, you always need to be thinking in any game.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> In article <nSlA3.1245$oG5.44...@news.randori.com>, "Ty says...
> >
> >Raymond Rangel <ray.r...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7qsnh7
> >> > If you like it, then play the hell out of it.
> >> >
> >
> >Agreed. Bob could end the arguments by halting the incessant "you just
don't
> >get it" retorts and simply stating "I like PK and enjoy playing it. It
has
> >systems that I think are fun and that's why I designed it." There is no
> >reasonable reply to that statement except "then play the hell out of it."
>
> BJ: Thank you, I will!
> >
> >It's when personal matters of taste are confused with THE BEST WAY that
it
> >gets adversarial. And if someone is gonna tell me (or unsubtly imply)
that
> >I'm stupid (or inexperienced or a control freak) for preferring a
different
> >*game* mechanic, then I'll object. Strenuously. And eventually start
> >shooting back.
>
> BJ: Even when you are unclear as to what you are accepting or rejecting in
a
> design? Seems like knowing what you are reacting to would be an initial
> requirement for judgment.
<After a good night's sleep...>
I am reacting to your characterization of "your taste" as the ONLY SMART
WAY. And for what it's worth, I don't enjoy flaming people. Again, I can do
that in my real job.
This thread started as a general question and has slowly, due to my ego and
your ego, evolved into a referendum on PK. So I've read some reviews of the
mechanics to get some grasp of what the game actually does. I'm sufficiently
intrigued to buy the game when I can find it.
In a nutshell, it seems that players roll 1d20 for initiative. Winner gets a
number of actions (impetuses) equal to the difference in the rolls. An
impetus consists of drawing from a deck of cards peculiar to that army --
which lets the unit(s) move, fire, do nothing, whatever. A "turn" ends at
the earlier of: completing 20 impetuses, both players rolling the same
number on the initiative roll, or a player exhausting his deck.
Okay. First of all, let me say that this *is* an innovative approach. Others
have used these elements before, but you use 'em all. The only things
missing are spinners and toy cannon :) It may or may not be my cup of tea,
but I can tell from the reviews that it will be truly different to play. And
you *have* managed to compress a great number of variables and uncertainty
into the turn sequencing. Since that was your goal, you have succeeded. And
the first indicator of a good designer is that his game does what he wants
it to do.
But see, this is really the absolute crux of the matter for me:
I just don't personally think that predictable turns are the most critical
flaw in most games. If I did, I would aim at a system just like yours. But I
don't. I think that it is "time pressure" --- which is why may games move
very fast and strongly urge that turns be timed. Strike 1.
Also, I am very suspicious (paranoid?) of games that allow random chance to
dictate how many actions a player can take at one time. Some (most?) of this
lies in the competitive aspect of my personality. I don't want luck to have
a *major* effect on whether I win or lose.
And therein lies the rub. Your game is philosophically descended from the
chit activation games. A player gets to do stuff for a randomly determined
period of time, then the other player goes. Yes, there are "interruption"
mechanics, but the statement is generally accurate.
My personal problem arises when a player gets an unusual number of actions
in a row. This is an advantage. It can (in theory) lead to a player mauling
his opponent and effectively deciding the game before the other player has a
chance to really do anything. I'm sure that you have tried to mitigate this,
as any good designer would. But I still suspect that the possibility is more
than I care for. Strike 2.
Finally, it absolutely enrages me when I perceive a reply to say (in effect)
"you're not smart/experienced/confident/tall/rich/whatever enough to
understand what I'm doing here." Strike 3, let the flames begin.
Bob, I've understood all along *why* you're doing this in your games -- even
before I had the foggiest notion of how your rules work. I get your
rationale. I just have doubts that this is the most important thing to
simulate and that the cost it worth it.
See, when we get to stuff as ephemeral as "what pressures are most
significant on a military commander", we leave the realm of facts and join
the realm of theoretical analysis. Well-documented battles are too scarce
(IMHO) to draw a lot of specific conclusions. So we interpret. And infer.
And fill in the gaps with logic (or bias disguised as logic). Then, we make
compromises for playability. And so on. It really becomes just a matter of
taste after an early point.
> As for "eventually" shooting back, I'd say you have a hair trigger, and a
> machine gun keyboard!
The latter is true; the former is not. I've tried hard not to get annoyed by
your posts. You're obviously intelligent (my insults notwithstanding) and
have thought a great deal about the approaches in your design -- which is
what a good designer should do. But you have been condescending to me and I
object.
But -- perhaps I did overlook something. In my game club, Command Decision
ruled supreme and Fistful of TOWs was initially bitterly resisted. My
approaches in that game often provoke spirited debate via email. So I can
imagine that you spend a lot of energy defending a game as different as PK.
And I'm sure you get your share of "you idiot -- why do you do this?"
questions. Quite possibly, you resasonably assumed that my initial posts
were of that same ilk and responded accordingly.
Well, let me make it clear -- I have never intended to question your
intelligence or your competence as a game designer (flames excepted of
course). I do question the order of priorities in your design (and your
solutions) -- but so what? I don't like shrimp either. I do expect, in a
serious discussion, to be treated as an intellectual equal (unless I say
something really STOOPID). If we can get this, then we can have an
enlightening discussion.
One thing that I have learned (the hard way) in my profession -- and
continue to have refreshers on it -- is that advocacy can be a deadly trap
for the unwary. Or for the professional advocate. Before screaming "you're
wrong, you idiot" we should consider if there even *is* a right and wrong in
the issue at hand.
And really, you might find me a willing ally...
> One More E-Mail and I'm within a dozen of Ty! What a race! What a
competitor!
> He doesn't like to lose, does he???!!! He's even given up
move-counter-move in
> his e-mails and is trying to post three times to my one!
<Chuckle> No, I don't like to lose. And isn't that "king's priviledge" -- 3
moves to 1? Plus, the combination of a rare couple of days off and the
family being gone has left me with the ability to give in to a favorite
predilection -- discussing game mechanics. Only discussing religion is as
absorbing for me. Or is there a difference?
> Is he a closet PK player? Have we subliminally won a convert?
Possibly. The game sounds intriguing, and is obviously deeper than some of
its critics have granted. I owe it to myself to give it a try. I also do
like the idea of creating a game design toolkit. And I applaud your
willingness to push the envelope.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> By my standards, and I suspect those of most users of the English
> language, "rationed" means "distributed in a controlled manner." Yeah,
> I reserve the spelling flames for the truly simple.
Now THAT's mean. I like it.
--Ty Beard
SDLeetes
>In my opinion, you always need to be thinking in any game.
I couldn't agree more. That's why games where there are long periods where the
enemy is doing something, and the only decision you need to make is to pick
your targets for your next round of fire are pretty boring. There are plenty
of decisions in that type of game that take very little time to make, leaving a
lot of time to wait for your turn to act. BOOOORRRRINGGGGG!!!
Not in PK. The game, by having no set turn sequence, does not compartmentalize
your options for you. Thus you must constantly be considering all of your
options. In a yugo-igo game, when it's time to move, you don't decide _if_ you
should move, just where. When it's time to fire, you don't decide _whether or
not_ to fire, just at who. PK adds the question 'when?', which (based on my
reading of history) is the most important question the battlefield commander
has to answer.
Tom
SDLeetes
Been thinking about the possibilities of being able to triple the enemy's
movement in PK. Let me lay out for you everything that factors into movement:
1) the rate that you win impetus. As this is a d20 roll off, the probability
of winning impetus is exactly .5 for each player.
2) the percentage of impetus won that you spend turning cards on your deck
versus doing other things (namely, acting on those cards or firing) - this is
totally dependent on the player, and represents a critical decision level; do
you spend your impetus to fire on the enemy, or turn cards (at a cost of one
impetus per card turned) in hopes of getting a move card? Or do you bank some
of your impetus as opportunity chips for when you lose the initiative in the
future? Planning, planning, planning...
3) the movement 'efficiency' of your card deck, or the percentage of cards in
your deck that allow you to move. Deck composition is different for each army,
based on its historical performance. Looking purely at Napoleonic infantry (I
own the Les Grognards suppliment) and using only the standard deck, this ranges
from a high of 3 cards per 28 card deck (.107) to a low of 2 cards per 28 card
deck (.071). Doesn't look like much difference there, but a good army like the
1806 French have a 50% higher chance of pulling a move card than a bad army
like the 1806 Prussians. To put it another way, the French, on average, will
need to spend 9.3 impetus turning cards to get an inf move card; the 1806
Prussians will spend 14.1.
4) the percentage of move cards turned up that you decide to use to move
troops. You'll be surprised to know that this is not 100%, particularly if you
are on the defense. Again, this is totally up to the player. As I said in #2,
impetus spent on moving is impetus that you can't spend firing, rallying,
changing formation, or anything else. Thus you only move when it's important
to move, and there are often troops that don't move an inch the whole battle.
5) the percentage of your units you move on each move card you use. Again,
not 100%. See #4.
6) the command cohesion of your army. This is critical. For a given command,
if all the units are 'in command', they may all move at the cost of a single
impetus. If they are not 'in command', they cost one impetus each. Hence a
1806 Prussian player with 12 infantry units all in one division will spend
roughly 14 impetus to get the move card and one more (15 total) to move the
whole division. An 1806 French player with the same division, but half the
division out of command, will spend 9 impetus to get the move card and another
7 impetus to move the whole division - a total of 16 impetus, or 1 more than it
cost the Prussians. Hopefully it's obvious that PK rewards unit integrity.
If you put all this together, you'll find that the factors effecting movement
rates are either totally in the players control (#2, 4, and 5), based on
historical army performance (#3) or unit cohesion (#6). The only factor that
is not in the player's control and that does not represent some facet of
history or command and control is #1, and the rate of that is exactly equal for
both players. In fact it's the only thing that is exactly equal for both
players. Of the six things I listed, I'd say that #2, #4 and #6 are the most
important.
So if you want to move three times for each time your enemy moves once, it can
be done. It will take a large percentage of your impetus to do it, and unless
your opponent is an idiot, he'll be spending his impetus to put a crimp in your
plans. Even if you keep winning the impetus roll, he has opportunity chips to
spend firing on you as you move, or using his cav to charge your disordered
units - and that can get ugly. If he can rout one of your units, you then
_have_ to spend impetus moving the routing unit on every move card you draw,
plus he gets two free impetus to either bank as more opportunity or else buy
down the impetus you currently have to spend. And with the average win being
5.5 impetus, buying down 2 means it's a lot closer to time to make the next
roll, which the enemy might win...
Tom
rjo...@rmi.net
>
<<snip>>
>
>I am reacting to your characterization of "your taste" as the ONLY SMART
>WAY. And for what it's worth, I don't enjoy flaming people. Again, I can do
>that in my real job.
BJ: Nor do I. I guess at core I get irritated at those that speak of PKs
artificialities while remaining quite blind to their own preferred rules
'constructs'. I also believe that strict MCM is very restrictive on design
development. Not only has it been done for 20 years, but it seems(to me) a bit
of a dead end.
>
<<snip>>
A "turn" ends at
>the earlier of: completing 20 impetuses, both players rolling the same
>number on the initiative roll, or a player exhausting his deck.
BJ: No, a phase ends with 20 impetus. A turn could have 3-4 or 6 phases! I said
the closest to a typical turn was the phase, but it is not a direct parallel.
>
>Okay. First of all, let me say that this *is* an innovative approach.
<<snip>>
>the first indicator of a good designer is that his game does what he wants
>it to do.
BJ: Thank you.
>
>But see, this is really the absolute crux of the matter for me:
>
>I just don't personally think that predictable turns are the most critical
>flaw in most games. If I did, I would aim at a system just like yours. But I
>don't. I think that it is "time pressure" --- which is why may games move
>very fast and strongly urge that turns be timed. Strike 1.
BJ: Timed turns are more important if there is no other design limiter on play
decision making
>
>Also, I am very suspicious (paranoid?) of games that allow random chance to
>dictate how many actions a player can take at one time. Some (most?) of this
>lies in the competitive aspect of my personality. I don't want luck to have
>a *major* effect on whether I win or lose.
BJ: Agreed, wholeheartedly-A good game must have meaningful decision making and
workable strategies. Uncontrolled use of chance makes for uninteresting games.
>
>And therein lies the rub. Your game is philosophically descended from the
>chit activation games. A player gets to do stuff for a randomly determined
>period of time, then the other player goes. Yes, there are "interruption"
>mechanics, but the statement is generally accurate.
>
<<snip>>
>
>Finally, it absolutely enrages me when I perceive a reply to say (in effect)
>"you're not smart/experienced/confident/tall/rich/whatever enough to
>understand what I'm doing here." Strike 3, let the flames begin.
BJ: I apologize if my enthusiastic advocacy seemed to infer any of those
statements.
>
<<snip>>
>See, when we get to stuff as ephemeral as "what pressures are most
>significant on a military commander", we leave the realm of facts and join
>the realm of theoretical analysis.
<<snip>>
And so on. It really becomes just a matter of
>taste after an early point.
BJ: It is always a matter of taste-but I am an agnostic when it comes to
statements that infer all such taste is equal. If true, Velvet art, Yanni, John
Tesh, and Adam Sandler are as accomplished as Rembrandt, Beethoven, Duke
Ellington, and Anthony Hopkins.
>
><<snip>>
>But -- perhaps I did overlook something. In my game club, Command Decision
>ruled supreme and Fistful of TOWs was initially bitterly resisted. My
>approaches in that game often provoke spirited debate via email. So I can
>imagine that you spend a lot of energy defending a game as different as PK.
>And I'm sure you get your share of "you idiot -- why do you do this?"
>questions. Quite possibly, you resasonably assumed that my initial posts
>were of that same ilk and responded accordingly.
BJ: Bingo! I appreciate your perception on this-and admit to its central
validity.
>
>Well, let me make it clear -- I have never intended to question your
>intelligence or your competence as a game designer (flames excepted of
>course). I do question the order of priorities in your design (and your
>solutions) -- but so what? I don't like shrimp either. I do expect, in a
>serious discussion, to be treated as an intellectual equal (unless I say
>something really STOOPID). If we can get this, then we can have an
>enlightening discussion.
BJ: No, I'm sorry, I can forgive your views on wargaming, but I am truly alarmed
to find you avoid shrimp (seafood in general?) With the Gulf mere miles away?
>One thing that I have learned (the hard way) in my profession -- and
>continue to have refreshers on it -- is that advocacy can be a deadly trap
>for the unwary. Or for the professional advocate. Before screaming "you're
>wrong, you idiot" we should consider if there even *is* a right and wrong in
>the issue at hand.
BJ: Advice well given and taken.
>
>And really, you might find me a willing ally...
BJ: I dunno...the shrimp thing....
>
<<snip>>
> The game sounds intriguing, and is obviously deeper than some of
>its critics have granted. I owe it to myself to give it a try. I also do
>like the idea of creating a game design toolkit. And I applaud your
>willingness to push the envelope.
>
>--Ty Beard
BJ: And so ends the War of BJ's Ear, known in some quarters as The War of the
Flaming Beard. All prisoners and casualties may now be exchanged. A Te Deum
will be held for all believers to be followed by a Sushi dinner.
BJ
Dave Burnett
> BJ: Dave, my only comment is that I don't think those are opposed poles-that
> chance and "tactical" skill, or historicity are at odds and conflicting.
They are not necessarily opposites... It's a sliding scale. Chess is
at one extreme and "flipping a coin" at the other end. I PREFER the
tactical end of the spectrum because (to be honest) I do very well at it.
I will agree that many people like the more random end of the scale
because it spreads the victories around more evenly. The better players
will still win more often, but not as often as in a less random system.
This is not necessarily bad... kind of like socialism in gaming, I guess.
However, I want to win or lose through my skill (or my opponent's) not
through factors outside both our control. I don't lose that often but,
when I do, my opponents celebrate hugely and tap dance on my grave because
THEY won, not because the dice shafted me... and they love it.
If your group feels differently, GREAT!!
Dave
Ty Beard
> In article <kFtA3.1253$oG5.48...@news.randori.com>, "Ty says...
> BJ: Nor do I. I guess at core I get irritated at those that speak of PKs
> artificialities while remaining quite blind to their own preferred rules
> 'constructs'.
Well, something that we can both agree on. It's often maddening to have your
rules criticized because a rule is thus-and-such. Then compared to another
rules set that could be criticized on the SAME GROUNDS!
> I also believe that strict MCM is very restrictive on design development.
Not
> only has it been done for 20 years, but it seems(to me) a bit
> of a dead end.
Clearly you're on a mission. And I can appreciate this, having took on the
mighty Combined Arms in my own club. I'm not uncomfortable with tried and
true mechanics -- though I'll not hesitate to abandon them if something
"better" comes along.
> >Okay. First of all, let me say that this *is* an innovative approach.
> <<snip>>
>
> >the first indicator of a good designer is that his game does what he
wants
> >it to do.
>
> BJ: Thank you.
It's sometimes amazing to read the designer's notes and read where the
designer wanted a set of rules that did thus-and-such. And to say to
yourself "but they don't DO THAT."
> >But see, this is really the absolute crux of the matter for me:
> >
> >I just don't personally think that predictable turns are the most
critical
> >flaw in most games. If I did, I would aim at a system just like yours.
But I
> >don't. I think that it is "time pressure" --- which is why may games move
> >very fast and strongly urge that turns be timed. Strike 1.
>
> BJ: Timed turns are more important if there is no other design limiter on
play
> decision making
True. But important to me regardless of the existence of any other limiter
on decision making. And I personally see no *inherent* advantage in doing it
systemically. To do it systemically, you'd have to have some pretty "far
out" mechanics. And as a fairly conservative person, that makes me less
comfortable. Thus my personal bias that the cost (unfamiliarity and perhaps
increased luck) doesn't outweigh the benefit of using a systemic approach.
Of course, I tend to be complimented for an ability to make good decisions
under time pressures. It's natural for me to prefer games that allow me to
use this talent/skill. OTOH, I have a problem visualizing 3 dimensions on a
2-D surface. So I'm rather bad at air combat games and avoid them like the
plague that they are :)
> >Also, I am very suspicious (paranoid?) of games that allow random chance
to
> >dictate how many actions a player can take at one time. Some (most?) of
this
> >lies in the competitive aspect of my personality. I don't want luck to
have
> >a *major* effect on whether I win or lose.
>
> BJ: Agreed, wholeheartedly
Then we're down to a fact question -- does PK (for instance) allow luck to
have such an effect?
> >And therein lies the rub. Your game is philosophically descended from the
> >chit activation games. A player gets to do stuff for a randomly
determined
> >period of time, then the other player goes. Yes, there are "interruption"
> >mechanics, but the statement is generally accurate.
> >
> <<snip>>
> >
> >Finally, it absolutely enrages me when I perceive a reply to say (in
effect)
> >"you're not smart/experienced/confident/tall/rich/whatever enough to
> >understand what I'm doing here." Strike 3, let the flames begin.
>
> BJ: I apologize if my enthusiastic advocacy seemed to infer any of those
> statements.
And I apologize for retaliating viciously. Neither was warranted nor
excusable -- from grown men anyhow.
> >See, when we get to stuff as ephemeral as "what pressures are most
> >significant on a military commander", we leave the realm of facts and
join
> >the realm of theoretical analysis.
>
> <<snip>>
>
> And so on. It really becomes just a matter of
> >taste after an early point.
>
> BJ: It is always a matter of taste-but I am an agnostic when it comes to
> statements that infer all such taste is equal.
<chuckle>
Fair enough, but I don't intend to infer that all systems are "equal". What
I'm saying is that we have to agree on what the objective standard is before
with can hold systems to that standard. And I have doubts that this can
happen with wargamers who have fundamentally different *reasons* for playing
wargames. Once we agree on THAT WHICH IS MOST IMPORTANT, then we can
probably determine what systems are "better" at achieving this thing.
> If true, Velvet art, Yanni, John
> Tesh, and Adam Sandler are as accomplished as Rembrandt, Beethoven, Duke
> Ellington, and Anthony Hopkins.
Well, you *do* have a gift for demonstrating the absolute extremes!
> >But -- perhaps I did overlook something. In my game club, Command
Decision
> >ruled supreme and Fistful of TOWs was initially bitterly resisted. My
> >approaches in that game often provoke spirited debate via email. So I can
> >imagine that you spend a lot of energy defending a game as different as
PK.
> >And I'm sure you get your share of "you idiot -- why do you do this?"
> >questions. Quite possibly, you resasonably assumed that my initial posts
> >were of that same ilk and responded accordingly.
>
> BJ: Bingo! I appreciate your perception on this-and admit to its central
> validity.
Well sometimes even a blind hog gets an acorn :)
> >Well, let me make it clear -- I have never intended to question your
> >intelligence or your competence as a game designer (flames excepted of
> >course). I do question the order of priorities in your design (and your
> >solutions) -- but so what? I don't like shrimp either. I do expect, in a
> >serious discussion, to be treated as an intellectual equal (unless I say
> >something really STOOPID). If we can get this, then we can have an
> >enlightening discussion.
>
> BJ: No, I'm sorry, I can forgive your views on wargaming, but I am truly
alarmed
> to find you avoid shrimp (seafood in general?) With the Gulf mere miles
away?
It's even worse. I am a native of Louisiana -- my family is riddled with
names like Du Bois, Lemoine, etc. I have no explanation for my dislike of
shrimp (or most seafood). Fortunately, my adopted home of Texas is the Land
of Beef -- the true manna from heaven.
> >One thing that I have learned (the hard way) in my profession -- and
> >continue to have refreshers on it -- is that advocacy can be a deadly
trap
> >for the unwary. Or for the professional advocate. Before screaming
"you're
> >wrong, you idiot" we should consider if there even *is* a right and wrong
in
> >the issue at hand.
>
> BJ: Advice well given and taken.
And unfortunately in my case, learned over and over again.
> > The game sounds intriguing, and is obviously deeper than some of
> >its critics have granted. I owe it to myself to give it a try. I also do
> >like the idea of creating a game design toolkit. And I applaud your
> >willingness to push the envelope.
> BJ: And so ends the War of BJ's Ear, known in some quarters as The War of
the
> Flaming Beard. All prisoners and casualties may now be exchanged. A Te
Deum
> will be held for all believers to be followed by a Sushi dinner.
Amen.
Yuk...Sushi.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> Ty wrote:
>
> >In my opinion, you always need to be thinking in any game.
>
> I couldn't agree more. That's why games where there are long periods
where the
> enemy is doing something, and the only decision you need to make is to
pick
> your targets for your next round of fire are pretty boring.
Interestingly enough, this attitude permeates most of my designs. Almost all
of my wargames are multi-player affairs. Typically, most players won't have
a strong background in the topic, so the rules need to be as intuitive as
possible.
Since we play my rules at my wargame club, the rules try to reflect these
design goals. I occassionally get an email in which someone wants to know
why I let an entire side move in most of my games. Why not do "I move a
squad/you move a squad"? The answer is that this is fine for 2 players, but
breaks down into boredome for large groups of players.
Regardless of my other reservations about PK, I suspect that it will keep
the interest of the players in a multiplayer games.
--Ty Beard
Ty Beard
> Ty-
>
> Been thinking about the possibilities of being able to triple the enemy's
> movement in PK. Let me lay out for you everything that factors into
movement:
>
> 1) the rate that you win impetus. As this is a d20 roll off, the
probability
> of winning impetus is exactly .5 for each player.
True -- but somewhat beside the point. According to RJ, initiative winners
average about 5 actions. So how often will a winner get 10+ actions (double)
or 15+ actions (triple)?
The odds, as I very roughly calculate them are 6.25% and 2.25% per
initiative roll. Pretty low, really. But if you make an average of 20
initiative rolls per game, then the odds of it happening once rise to
roughly 75% and 37% respectively. In Ty's Nightmare Game, every time this
happens the opposing player will lose the game. So, 75% (or 37%) of all
games are decided by luck.
Fortunately, PK does mitigate this. This won't result in a victory every
time it happens for a variety of reasons:
1. You won't always be positioned to deliver a mauling blow;
2. You won't always get the cards you need to deliver that blow;
3. The phase may end before you can take full advantage of the impetuses;
4. The game allows some forms of "interrupt" to occur in some cases;
5. And so on.
So the fact question becomes "do the mitigations keep luck from deciding the
outcome in an unacceptably high number of games?" I guess that 10% is my
personal acceptibility limit. If so, then I'll probably like the game and
play it. And, by the way, unhesitatingly steal mechanics and systems that I
like.
> 3) the movement 'efficiency' of your card deck, or the percentage of
cards in
> your deck that allow you to move. Deck composition is different for each
army,
> based on its historical performance.
I had a similar idea some years ago to allow players in a fantasy miniatures
wargame build a deck of cards that would let them move farther, get a bonus
in combat, rally easier, etc. This would let them determine the "character"
of their army. I never got around to fleshing it out, but I thought the idea
was cool.
I certainly can see that cards can allow you to elegantly show certain
tendencies of armies...
I'm looking forward to trying PK out.
--Ty Beard
rjo...@rmi.net
says...<<snip>>
I will agree that many people like the more random end of the scale
>because it spreads the victories around more evenly. The better players
>will still win more often, but not as often as in a less random system.
>This is not necessarily bad... kind of like socialism in gaming, I guess.
BJ: I wish someone would tell Brent Oman or Timm Meyers that victories are meant
to be spread around more evenly!
So if a modest decrease in direct control, and some chance are added to a
system, and that makes it socialist, then a system that has little or no chance
and requires a FIXED and stated turn sequence is fascist? (You Vill Muvf your
cavalry-NOW!)
I think not! I think we are all wise to steer clear of such 'political'
comparisons.
BJ
SDLeetes
>> 1) the rate that you win impetus. As this is a d20 roll off, the
>probability
>> of winning impetus is exactly .5 for each player.
Ty:
>True -- but somewhat beside the point. According to RJ, initiative winners
>average about 5 actions. So how often will a winner get 10+ actions (double)
>or 15+ actions (triple)?
>
>The odds, as I very roughly calculate them are 6.25% and 2.25% per
>initiative roll. Pretty low, really. But if you make an average of 20
>initiative rolls per game, then the odds of it happening once rise to
>roughly 75% and 37% respectively. In Ty's Nightmare Game, every time this
>happens the opposing player will lose the game. So, 75% (or 37%) of all
>games are decided by luck.
If it were true that all it took was one big initiative win (15-19 impetus) to
crush the enemy, I'd have to agree with you. I think a lot of people would
agree with you. But it really isn't true. First off, the lion's share of the
impetus won is in small amounts. The limitation of 20 impetus in a phase also
tends to cancel some of the big wins (how many times have we seen a roll off
with only a couple impetus left in a phase, and the winning side wins by 10+...
a wasted big win, as you only get the impetus that are left in the phase).
Even when you are in position to deliver some real damage, the other mitigating
factors you mentioned do play a large role in not allowing this to happen. One
of the key mitigating factors is that if you really think the other side has
won a big impetus roll at a key time, you can use your own army morale chips to
buy down that initiative. It's costly, as morale chips are the most precious
commodity you have - but I saw a game at Historicon where one player saw that
this critical point had been reached, bought down an entire initiative of 13
impetus, and then won the next impetus roll... and went on to win the game.
It was a gutsy move, but the player was right - the key moment had arrived, and
it was worth risking the morale of his army to take back the initiative.
Lastly, even when you call the shots on what happens, there's no garuntee that
your attacks will succeed. PK players rarely talk about luck with the
initiative roll; but luck with combat resolution, that often seems to play a
part. In this respect PK is like any other game out there. As PK players are
fond of saying, 'you can always roll a 1'.
When we talk about long impetus runs, we're really talking about one side
winning the impetus die roll a half dozen times or more in a row, and getting
30-40 impetus in a string. As I said before, even that much in a row doesn't
garuntee victory. You have to earn it by capitalizing on your opportunity.
>I certainly can see that cards can allow you to elegantly show certain
>tendencies of armies...
One of the easiest indicators of army 'ability' is the number of 'Dress Line'
cards in the deck - cards that allow no action, and are a wasted impetus. The
French at the height of their glory have zero in their 28 card standard deck.
Every French card is possibly useful. My favorite Russians, OTOH, have a
whopping seven dress lines - 1 in 4 cards is a dud. And the sad sack 1806
Prussians are saddled with TEN. Ouch. Mind you, nothing is set in stone - if
in the battle you want to play you think the French are worse than that (like
me, who wants to game battles during the retreat from Moscow), you can replace
some of the other cards with dress line at your leisure, and vice-versa. In
multi-player games, each player can be given a unique deck which reflects the
abilities of the portion of the army he controls, allowing you to make
Blucher's command pretty good, while the rest of the Prussians plod along.
Lots of flexibility in the system...
Tom