Rules of engagement
Magnus Kristiansen
> I note with some regret two things:
>1) There are nearly no corpses in the upper right quadrant of the map,
> while there are many corpses in the middle and the > lower left.
>2) Pineapples lost no units (!) but didn't win.
>It's not entirely sporting to divert all your forces in one direction -
> it means the person you focus on usually gets
> smushed, while the person you ignore can't ever really get in the game.
> Dan (Wolff) and Alex and I discussed the meritsof this over a series of
> e-mails long ago. Obviously, this is a rule of etiquette and difficult
> or impossible toenforce, but it bears thinking about.
Since I was the villain in this case, I thought I'd bring the discussion
up again. I played a somewhat defensive strategy in my first game (the
Wolff duel), and when this failed to yield results I was informed there
was no reward for surviving. This encourages offensive, fast-paced games.
Combined with executives it also encourages wild panda charges to take out
the enemy exec.
This is what inspired my strategy in the quoted game. Charge one enemy for
a quick takedown, and bring the entire force along to avoid a second
front. After the enemy is down, move on to the next front.
I think it boils down to a lack of incentives for fighting multiple
fronts. Your outgoing damage is limited, but your incoming isn't.
--
Magnus Kristiansen
"Don't worry; the Universe IS out to get you."
Alex Reutter
On Apr 16, 1:50 pm, "Magnus Kristiansen" <magnusrk+lg...@pvv.org>
wrote:
Magnus Kristiansen
wrote:
>
> What map was this on?
Nuclear power is safe.
Alex Reutter
(this is a Good Thing, and was intended by Wolff from the start to
discourage camping), or split your forces too evenly (as you say,
"outgoing damage is limited, but your incoming isn't"). I think the
level to which you keep your forces together is situation-dependent.
I tend to try to choose a direction and "push" that way, keeping a
rearguard (miners, snipeys) to slow down an overwhelming attacking
force or stand and fight an equal or inferior force. Depending upon
what's happening on the map, you want to be ready to push on in that
initial direction (particularly if they have significant HP left for
you to harvest), or wheel back upon opponents behind you, or go in
another direction entirely (if the map allows it).
On Apr 17, 10:17 am, "Magnus Kristiansen" <magnusrk+lg...@pvv.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:32:32 +0200, Alex Reutter <alex.reut...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What map was this on?
>
> Nuclear power is safe.
>
Right. Since there's a relatively high cost of getting to your
opponents (shooting through hardened doors), and since doing damage is
how you score points, there's even more good reason to throw your
weight in a particular direction. There's actually very little reason
to initially head for the center, since healthpaks are a mixed
blessing.
Alex
David McCullough Dobson
The problem is, you run into kind of a prisoner's dilemma thing, where
you'll have a better game with participation from all players if you fight
on two fronts, but you'll often get a better score (though usually a
2nd-place max finish) by completely focusing one direction, which leaves
one person crushed and another with nobody to shoot. If anybody breaks
the deal, the game ends up worse for half the players.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Dobson d...@snood.com | Note: Please include a copy of any previous
WWW: http://snood.com | correspondence if you respond to this mail
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Reutter
On Apr 17, 2:18 pm, David McCullough Dobson <d...@snood.pair.com>
wrote:
> The problem is, you run into kind of a prisoner's dilemma thing, where
> you'll have a better game with participation from all players if you fight
> on two fronts, but you'll often get a better score (though usually a
> 2nd-place max finish) by completely focusing one direction, which leaves
> one person crushed and another with nobody to shoot. If anybody breaks
> the deal, the game ends up worse for half the players.
>
>
But what if everybody "breaks the deal"? I think it would be highly
entertaining if /everyone/ rushed madly clockwise around the map,
looking for opponents. :-)
More seriously, the fact that completely focusing in one direction
does not appear to be optimal (especially if you're a higher ranked
player; I can easily go negative when coming in 2nd) makes me not too
worried about this issue. Figuring what is an "appropriate" split of
forces shouldn't be much of a moral decision; that way lies madness
(like determining when it's "appropriate" for a 3rd party, otherwise
out of the running, to "interfere" in the endgame between two other
opponents :-).
Alex
David McCullough Dobson
> But what if everybody "breaks the deal"? I think it would be highly
> entertaining if /everyone/ rushed madly clockwise around the map,
> looking for opponents. :-)
That describes a previous game of the six-player map to a tee, except it
was counter-clockwise. It was like watching NASCAR.
> More seriously, the fact that completely focusing in one direction
> does not appear to be optimal (especially if you're a higher ranked
> player; I can easily go negative when coming in 2nd) makes me not too
> worried about this issue. Figuring what is an "appropriate" split of
> forces shouldn't be much of a moral decision; that way lies madness
> (like determining when it's "appropriate" for a 3rd party, otherwise
> out of the running, to "interfere" in the endgame between two other
> opponents :-).
OK, I can agree that imposing behavioral constraints and ethics on a silly
game is, well, silly.
However, as I have played the "he who gets mobbed" role 3-4 times in
recent games, and "he who is left idly twiddling his zappy pistol" a
couple other times, I'd like to point out that those aren't really fun,
and rank lost in those ways feels quite arbitrary.
Thus, I leave this debate behind, but as I do so, I take the Dobinatorian
pledge: I shall not mob one side. Shall you be placed near me, you shall
feel some measure of my wrath, or at least have a couple of me as
blue-purple skeet for your amusement.
That is, except for Small 4-way, where I always go to one side :-)
Wolff Dobson
mixes work better and worse for all going one way or another. Dave's
commitment to honor is a personal statement, but it's also a very
effective tactic on some maps. :-)
One can imagine your team as an expanding hull. If you can use the
hull surface to surround someone, you will win (like the Cannae
tactic). Since we're using ranged weapons and there is a lot of
terrain, there are many values of "surround" besides a simple
crescent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae
On some maps, the corridors are wide enough you can fit most of your
team along one path, so a one-directional rush is a good idea---you
get a strong hull that can envelop other people.
NuclearPowerIsSafe is designed so that you are strong going one way
and weak going another, so you will be encouraged to go
counterclockwise. NuclearStorage has wide, wide corridors that can
fit your whole team in just one.
Other maps this isn't the case. Some maps have no structure, so your
hull collapses into frantic running around (Entrails), while other
ones the pipes are too narrow, and if you don't split your forces you
aren't maximizing your hull area. I always split my forces on
Hedgemaze and ManInTheMiddle.