It is the nature of military command (and some other decision makers)
that decisions must be made quickly in a fluid environment with
inadequatw and, often, incorrect information. Some people have a flair
for this sort of thing and some people do not.
Persons who lack this particular flair always want more information, so
that they can make an 'informed choice'. Now if both opposing commanders
have this mind set no harm is done. A pedestrian struggle ensues. If
only one one commander has this mind set then he is liable to discover
that Rommel has already gone around his flank and is rolling up his
line-of-communication.
There is a balance here. The possibility of a huge mistake versus the
probability of being unable to exploit fleeting opportunity.
Then there is preplanning. When Hannibal's starving army exited the Alps
into Italy, how did they obtain their supplies? They had prebribed the
Italian commander of Rome's northernmost supply depot. Hannibal shows
up, depot surrenders and the commander gets the rest of his gold.
Meditate a moment on the aforethought required here.
This game, as originally designed and played, did a great job in mimicing
the intellectual stresses placed on a Real World military commander.
There were 25 persons interacting in a complex and ever shifting manner. There was an emphasis on the fog-of-war. The rulebook deliberately
contained errors, omissions and ambiguities. Boundries were few and the
horizon far away. The GMs were deliberately vague and usually/often
unhelpful. Games generally ran twice as long as present, so long-term
preplanning was rewarded. The decision making process could be as
complex or simple as the player chose.
If (or as) the number of players decline simplification results. If the
fog-of-war is eroded simplification results. If the game gets shorter in
duration, simplification results. If boundries block the horizion
simplification results. If helpful GMs explain thing and provide things
and prevent players from making mistakes, simplification results What
was a wargame (stress on war) becomes a wargame (stress on game).
Actually, it's become more like chess over the years with little tolerance
on the part of some (many?) players if you don't follow the opening sequence
"correctly".
I loved the game when it was new and unknown. I actually thought archers
would be useful to me as an elven nation (ha!), that researching an
artefact's powers was a useful thing to do, etc. Players tended to stay the
course because there was always the possibility of regrouping and rebounding
into the fray.
Then out came the artefact lists, the dragon lists, the pop centre lists
etc.
The 2950 game rewarded long term planning and strategy for a while and then
it too fell to the curse of complete information.
And then players started dropping at the first sign of trouble (sometimes as
early as turn 10) so that they could "start over". Little concern ever
seemed to be shown for the remaining players.
I have very high hopes that Clint and company will restore the mystery that
was there in the beginning. With luck, those wanting "perfect knowledge"
over skill, adaptability and planning will move on.
Gavin
Ovatha Easterling wrote:
···
If (or as) the number of players decline simplification results. If the
fog-of-war is eroded simplification results. If the game gets shorter in
duration, simplification results. If boundries block the horizion
simplification results. If helpful GMs explain thing and provide things
and prevent players from making mistakes, simplification results What
was a wargame (stress on war) becomes a wargame (stress on game).
The chess comparison has been made many times. There are opening moves,
but how those develop and fit the game and the enemy and his moves is very
interesting.
Sometimes those opening moves fall to just - shall we attack now or
later? Which items shall we go for? Are we heavy camping or not? For
1650 what shall we do with all that HC? Lots and lots of fun
IMO. Personally I like chatting about a plan and then enacting that plan
to the best of my ability. I'm in two grudge games at present and the GM
team (we meet every other Tuesday) chats about the plan for this turn and
the team realises that the best team wins so we compromise and try to fit
the plan that has been created by the team. Lots of fun trying to work out
the plan...
The 2nd grudge team looks like we're winning game 21. FP haven't broken
into Mordor at all yet and it's turn 20+ so it's just a matter of playing
out the game now IMO but I've been wrong before... .
Clint (player)
Actually, it's become more like chess over the years with little tolerance
···
on the part of some (many?) players if you don't follow the opening sequence
"correctly".
----------
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/04
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If (or as) the number of players decline simplification results.
If the fog-of-war is eroded simplification results.
If the game gets shorter in duration, simplification results.
If boundries block the horizion simplification results.
If helpful GMs explain thing and provide things and prevent players from
making mistakes, simplification results.
What was a wargame (stress on war) becomes a wargame (stress on game).
Comments?
Ed Mills.
It's hard to disagree with most of your historical analysis/theoretical
mails, Ed. Mind you, many will be presumptuous regarding your intent
("What does he REALLY mean by all this..."). I believe one reply already
asked you: What specifics do you have in mind that would be able to take
care of the problems you see? And when you say "company practices", be more
specific. You may have said them before, but we don't always remember or
store every message (here or pbmforum), and many readers are new to the
conversation, so it's easily worthwhile to repeat yourself sometimes,
especially if you're making proposals instead of repeating/chanting cliched
mantras.
In regards to the points above:
1-the number of players would appear to fit an even or positive sloped line
= increasing.
2-the fog-of-war is a changing with the times issue - can't stop the
Internet
3-short games are a result of the "problems" you see, not a "problem" in
itself (?)
4-what are these Boundaries to the horizon? Or is this a metaphor to
clarify previous statements?
5-you believe that: GM's shouldn't provide allied contact info, support
MEOW, Palantir, or answer questions~ ?
I'm sure you've experienced it enough in your varied experiences in the Real
World - If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Yes?
I more or less agree with Ed's analysis, though if it's true thatv
errors were deliberately put in the rulebook I would question the
business sense of doing something like that. By all means leave
something vague, but don't lie in a rulebook.
But anyway...
I too miss the unknown that formed part of the game at the very
beginning. But then to behonest, in the UK we never had as much
unknown as you guys in the US had. By the time the game was released
here, a lot of information had already been spread via the internet
(or the "information superhighway" as it was known back then).
I regret that games are over so quickly these days ... I remember my
2950 game 20 with fondness ... it ended on turn 100. Or the events in
the original game 5 which gave new definition to phrases like "fog of
war" and "shifting sands of alliances".
However - those days are gone and cannot come back, how ever much we
may long for them to do so.
I cannot resist one little dig at Ed, for which I hope he will forgive
me, ... Ed, surely the balance of the game you describe can only be
achieved by making changes to the original game design? (Or by
liberal use of a time machine, obviously).
Lots and lots of fun
(Or by