Bah, go back to Mechanar
SOMRTHING TO THINK ABOUT;
Monopoly recently produced a game variant. Instead of the standard paper currency, it uses credit cards and a scanner/reader gizmo. A good business move. A whole new subset of persons can play Monopoly----persons unable to count, or who are poor in arthmatic.
If chess was dumbed-down to checkers but still retained the name ‘chess’, would it still be ‘chess’?
A LITTLE BACKGROUND;
It is the nature of military command that decisions must be made quickly in a fluid environment with inadequate and, often, incorrect information. Some people show a flair for this and some people do not. GSI catered to the former while Harley caters to the latter.
Persons who lack this particular flair always want more information, so that they can make an ‘informed decision’. If both commanders have this mindset no harm is done. If only one commander has this mindset then he is likely to discover that Rommel has already gone around his flank and is rolling up his LOC.
It is common for commanders, be they the corporal leading a six-man recon element or the Corps Commander arriving in the jungles of Viet-Nam with his troops for the first time, to know zilch about the terrain, enemy and situation. Despite this some of them survive, function well, defeat the enemy and avoid defeat themselves. Do you thonk these men achieve this by having things handed to them on a silver platter?
BACK TO MIDDLE EARTH;
When Stassun and Feilds designed this game they used a particular bundle of design concepts. Only one will be discussed here—the ‘fog-of-war/uncertainty’ principle. It is one of the elements that helped distinguish ME from the also-rans. It helped make this fantasy game ‘realisitc’.
Ever since Allsorts/Harley have had this game they have inflicted the death-of-the-thousand-cuts on this particular design concept. On this very thread we see two additional cuts being proposed. These are: Clearly identifying troop types (HC, etc) and more explicitly reporting enemy casualties.
Let us say a player receives a battle report and he fights “Mixed northern mercenaties with maces”. Some players could care less who or what they ate. Those that did can do the following:
1. Research a score, or more, battles and note their location on the OB.
2. Play a dozen, or more, games and from experience note the same info.
3. Ask a more expereinced person for his opinion on this subject.
4. Use algebra to estimate the troop-type’s strength and consitution.
5. Meditate on the subject and intuitively connect the dots with partial information.
Note two things about the above. They require some exertion on the part of the player and the possibility for error remains.
I agree with Ed that everything is being laid on on a silver platter with the new turnsheet. What ever happened to TBDDTCOP (To Be Discovered During The Course Of Play) I think that waaaaayyyy tooooooo much info is included.
Scavenger
Now wait a minute. Ed & Scavenger, I suggest that your arguments are self-serving and go against the goal of expanding the active player count by attracting lots of new players.
To be more succinct, the information that people are suggesting be detailed is there for the experienced, expert player with years and years of notes and collected game experience. No one wants information to be divulged that is not available to the experience player. Rather, the suggestions aim to make the information that experienced players have about game mechanics available to less experienced players.
Ed’s argument that really excellent commanders go into unknown terrain and win because they’re stud-muffins would be a fine argument to hear if it was coming from a new player. The fact that Ed Mills has been around a very long time and has lots of accumulated data about the game that he wants to keep secret, well, hmmm. Who is he serving by suggesting this data be kept secret? He’s been in the “unknown terrain” for years and years. He knows every creek, hillside, forest and ravine. Yeah, Ed. You want newbie commanders to come into your territory without benefit of game mechanics knowledge that you have. Why? Rely on your skill in strategy & tactics in lieu of your knowledge of game mechanics.
To be very clear, let’s examine the proposals that players made regarding the 2 examples that Ed thinks “remove the fog of war”: Troop type & explicitly reporting casualties.
My suggestion on troop types eliminates advantage of experience players vs. novice. Experience players know the mapping of words to troop types. We’ve played lots of games and have the knowledge. Novice players are therefore at a disadvantage. Why should we disadvantage the novice with game mechanics info that experienced players have gleaned?
The person that suggested reporting casualty results did not suggest “explicit” results be reported. Rather, they suggested that the report be the range that has been established by the more experienced player community. Again, the proposal would level the playing field between experienced players and more novice players.
I for one do not find it objectionable that game mechanics information that can be gleaned from playing lots of games be made more obvious for the novice.
Let’s learn from history. In the early/mid 1980s, a new form of entertainment was introduced called Laser Tag. Establishments sprang up where people could play. The people that played a lot got much better. They would hang out and kill the newbies repeatedly. The newbies didn’t have fun and didn’t come back. The establishments failed because of this behavior of the experienced players. We don’t want MEPBM to suffer “laser tag syndrome” - which is the acknowledged name for this in the game design community.
We want newbies to enjoy their experience and come back for more. Then we have more players, more games, a healthier company running the games, and improvement in their systems and infrastructure (like the online turn submission web site).
I strongly argue against the nostalga-focused perspective advocated by Ed Mills and believe it is motivated to preserve advantage gleaned from game mechanics experience. Give the newbies an even playing field and more will join and enjoy the game.
Dave
Dave,
I don’t disagree. But correct me if I am wrong, the pc report will tell you enemy army sizes and compositions? Why bother using the 925 order then? That is what I mean by way too much info. I do understand that if experienced players killed off newbies then the game will suffer and die off. I just think the estimated losses being clarified goes too far. Can’t players use their brains to figure it out or do we have to hit the buttons on the calculator for them? Do you see what I am saying?
Scavenger
Scavenger, thanks for being supportive of efforts to bring more newbies into MEPBM!!!
the suggestion that someone made on armies was that the generally accepted translation of losses be substituted for the words:
Magic Words Describing Army Troop Losses
Minor 01 ~ 25%
Some 26 ~ 50%
Severe 51 ~ 75%
Huge 76 ~ 100%
Of course, the better thing for a player to do if it matters is run the combat calculator after you see the troop types in the combat report and then you’ll know much closer approximation of the remaining forces than the above numbers dictate. So frankly this particular thing doesn’t seem to matter nearly as much as the translation of troop type to HC vs. LC…
The thing that irritates me is Ed preaching about the demise of “fog of war” when in fact he’s preaching that his preciously hoarded game knowledge remain secret so that it’s easier for him to beat up on novices. It’s not fog of war that is going away. Heck, if he really wanted fog of war, he’d play Gunboat. In that format you have huge Fog of War and you’re also playing other experienced players who also have played for years and years… no novices to beat up on. no one to blame for your muck-ups but yourself…
My understanding/assumption of the new format is that no new information is being presented other than to remove game mechanics mystique (level playing field between novice & experienced player). If indeed there is new information being reported, then it would be good for Clint to offer the detail of what new information is proposed to be reported so that the player community can discuss whether we want that to be “fog of war” or not. But I didn’t believe that any new info was being reported. My assumption was that the new turn format report would only show info that you gleaned through info spells or orders, but would attempt to collate the information in a better, easier to use format. Otherwise, your point is 100% correct. Why use a 925 if your city tells you?
Dave
Firstly we’re not intending to add new content. Ie no extra bits of information. Saying that we’re hoping to present the information in new ways. So for your PC you have an icon showing the size. You already have the PC report on characters and companies so you would have that information as normal but no extra information. So for clarity, you wouldn’t suddenly get a report of, in the case of armies, army size down to last troop rather than large,small that you normally get at present.
Hope that makes sense.
As to helping new players, we want to encourage them as best we can without penalising older players to the game. We want them to be brought upto speed as fast as we can. That’s part of the problem with running a game that has run for over a decade is that information such as say, army losses, is out there but not easy for a new player to, necessarily, get to.
But correct me if I am wrong, the pc report will tell you enemy army sizes and compositions?
That’s wrong. Corrected… 
As to adding reports on expected sizes, that’s something I’ll consider later and come back to.
So we won’t, at least to start with, add functionality, but will change the way you gain some information (eg graphical rather than text etc). Should we decide to update the game we’ll discuss that with players for extra functionality, new orders, new information etc but that’s not part of the new look to the turnsheet, rather development of the game.
Still chess as far as I’m concerned, one with several thousand starting pieces and hundreds of thousands of opening moves that have yet to be discovered.
So back to the point in hand, do players like the new look PC report, as requested we cut the size back to usable size and hopefully presented the information in a more user-friendly manner.
Clint (GM)
Ed, infer from the above that you are a staunch opponent of the “intelligent battlefield”, friend vs foe systems, soldier-based pin point GPS, micro-survelliance drones (and other things that you probably know alot more than me about). And you would dismiss an argument that analysis of large volumes of information requires a flair of its own, right?
I disagree. The information is all over the place and very easy to get to. It looks to me like the new turn sheet is simply taking info that’s found in one place and reproducing it elsewhere on the sheet.
Are you sure…? What about “Allied Characters” on the pop centre report? Anything else sneaking in to refute the above statement?
To be clear, I’m not a fan of the “new” turn report mostly because it’s too long. And I’m somewhat of a cranky vet, I guess…I did my own research, compiled all this information that I very easily sought out and found over 8 years ago when I started playing - so my intitial reaction is really against the “spoon feeding” syndrome. But if the marketting guru’s know more, so be it. And if it increases the number of 1 week games running, I’m all for it…!
Brad Brunet
Rox: Thanks for the intelligent and nonpersonal observation. There is a basic disconnect between GSI and Harley. It revolves around the ability (or lack thereof) to function in an ambiguous environment. The great majority need structure—whatever form that may take. There are those that can do well in chaostic situations.
Then there are situations when both order and chaos exisits side-by-side and you are given a moral choice as to which you choose. Then there are situations so well disguised that you don’t even realise there is a choice or such things as freewill.
Perhaps you will recall, about, four years ago. Both this Forum and the List were being censored. Methinks it was because some alien concepts that contradicted the preconceptions of the ‘Brit Clique’ were being spread. These issues were brought forward then—not that it seems to stuck very well in Cardiff.
Are you sure…? What about “Allied Characters” on the pop centre report? Anything else sneaking in to refute the above statement?
We have no plans for that info - sorry about any confusion. It’s awkward to show something in planning and what the real thing will look like but point taken. What I will do when we get closer to releaseing it is bring up the new look of an actual working turnsheet and get feedback then. Ideally I’m looking for improvements to the turnsheet that we can present as an option.
Clint
I would like if new PCs (like camps made in the same turn) are easy to see. Maybe a symbol or difrent color. I use to name camps so that my last camps are listed first. Then I see immidently how much sucess I have had in campmaking.
i like it much better… I think it a great addition to the game… If it also lays foundation for greater details in future put it into play… I know we are extremely underutilizing the capabilities of Pdf’s…
As for the nay sayers saying it gives to much away… Bah BS changing the chess pieces doesn’t change the most important ability of a great player… It all about Thinking more turns or move ahead and forcing your opposition to write the orders you want him to in response to your move…
As for PC intel tell me how a Force march’s to a fortfied anything in a shore plains area without giving thier exact numbers of troops numbers and com’s in the Army! They certainly would need to write a 925 to get that info! That is another code that should be looked into in the future!
I like it all so put it into play ASAP!