Managing alliances in open press (broadcast-only) games
Horus
some questions and comments. First of all, is it true that the
defense has the advantage in open press, in that allies must
coordinate moves while on the offensive in view of all, while a sole
defender can play all his guessing games in private without fear of
having to disclose his tactical moves to the opposition? Second,
given that publicly announced moves can be countered, isn't it then
perfectly fine for one or both members of the alliance to unilaterally
do something different than broadcast so as to not be predictable, as
long as the spirit of the alliance is still upheld?
In the game in question, I've had two allies get all bent out of shape
because I deigned to alter tactical moves on the fly without telling
them, precisely because I feared enemy countermoves in response to
what we both posted (in one case the change ultimately represented no
long-term difference vs. the original plans; in the second, my revised
moves arguably weren't any worse, and in some ways better, than the
originals). OF COURSE if I fear the enemy will revise their moves in
response to an open broadcast of my own revisions (to alert my
allies), I'm not doing either of us any good. Do you think my
position is perfectly reasonable, or do you agree with my allies that
no changes can be made without a broadcast first?
Chris Babcock
Horus <difo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am currently in a game which has open (no private) press, and I have
> some questions and comments. First of all, is it true that the
> defense has the advantage in open press, in that allies must
> coordinate moves while on the offensive in view of all, while a sole
> defender can play all his guessing games in private without fear of
> having to disclose his tactical moves to the opposition?
Generally speaking, anything that slows momentum is more likely to
benefit of defense.
> Second,
> given that publicly announced moves can be countered, isn't it then
> perfectly fine for one or both members of the alliance to unilaterally
> do something different than broadcast so as to not be predictable, as
> long as the spirit of the alliance is still upheld?
What's "perfectly fine" is what they think is perfectly fine. If they
are still saying what they think then count yourself lucky.
> In the game in question, I've had two allies get all bent out of shape
> because I deigned to alter tactical moves on the fly without telling
> them, precisely because I feared enemy countermoves in response to
> what we both posted (in one case the change ultimately represented no
> long-term difference vs. the original plans; in the second, my revised
> moves arguably weren't any worse, and in some ways better, than the
> originals). OF COURSE if I fear the enemy will revise their moves in
> response to an open broadcast of my own revisions (to alert my
> allies), I'm not doing either of us any good. Do you think my
> position is perfectly reasonable, or do you agree with my allies that
> no changes can be made without a broadcast first?
When you can't set up situations that cannot be countered (uncuttable
supports, forced moves, etc.) then you're better off agreeing to
option plans.
By that I mean you agree to the minimal framework needed to work
together and then have "options" for execution within that framework.
Agreement in principle is better than agreement as to specifics in
broadcast only, but a mixture of the two is more powerful than either
alone.
What you don't want is to get someone to agree with you here then take
that response back to the game to rub noses in it... unless you
especially enjoy humiliating defeats.
Chris