Some of the funnest games I played was when I knew I would lose, but wanted to see how far I could get before losing. This was especially true in chess, a game in which I developed expertise at losing.Originally Posted by Sea Gull
Some of the funnest games I played was when I knew I would lose, but wanted to see how far I could get before losing. This was especially true in chess, a game in which I developed expertise at losing.
I once played a WW2 game where a German platoon were trying to hold off a Russian onslaught. Russian casualties were recycled. There was no way the Germans could "win". Once the game was completed, we reset everything and then swapped sides. The winner being the one who held out the longest. Marvellous fun.
Exactly. I think we miss opportunities for fun games if we limit ourselves to even matches in which someone "wins" and someone "loses". Sometimes it is fun simply to see what would happen in a given scenario. This is especially true when playing with groups that aren't concerned about competition but hanging out together and playing a fun game - no one has dashed expectations. In SoG, there will be times when I play a historically accurate scenario, and times I will makeup something that catches my fancy and seems interesting, even if outrageous. For me, I like having a broad range of choices when establishing the goals/objectives of a game.
The difference is: You knew going in you were going to eat it.
What annoys me is: GMs who try to "sell" a scenario as "balanced", but in fact have it set up so one side is all-but-guaranteed to lose. I am reminded of the occasion at genCon where I let a GM -- and the entire gaming hall -- know exactly how I felt about his creating an ACW cavalry battle where in order for the US side to damage the CS side, the US player to roll 7 or higher on 1d6....
As you point out, there is a significant difference between difficult and disingenuous or just plain stupid. If folks are disheartened, the game ceased being a game. Then one has to ask, "What's the point?" If there is no chance to do anything, it is not a game. As we have been saying, winning does not have to mean you're the last one standing; but to get knocked down in the first round, without any other real possibility, is not much fun for anyone other than the self-indulgent individual who structured the game.
Vol, others, and I have been discussing shore scenarios. I would be happy to play one in which I knew it would be a bloodbath and I would "lose", as long as the game was structured interestingly and I had a chance to accomplish something, anything, of note. The challenge would be fun; if it is guaranteed that I can do nothing, there is no challenge, and hence, no fun.
Situations like that, the no-win scenario, are generally best when one player has to do something as quickly as possible, the other has to hold on for a long as possible. you know that your forces are a forlorn hope and will get a really bloody nose, maybe even 100% casualties. But, did you gain enough time for the fleet to escape, the column to escape ... etc. Those are some of the best games to play in my opinion.
Exactly. The important thing is for the "underdog" to have a realistic chance to accomplish something, regardless of what that something is. This is why it is important to think of victory in terms other than last one standing. This is why it is worthwhile to have different tiers of victory conditions. It provides room for a lot of creativity, which is important when one has a limited number of ships to draw upon.
The Battle of Trafalgar, 1805: A Labour of Love, handmade by Roger Cormier.
from consimworld pictures by Gareth Scott http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?7@@.1dd4e196/8
One of the rarest of rare "board games" here's some pictures to show you how they did it back in the early 70's
I still have a couple of 15mm Frigates from Peter Pig - nice imposing models
Never looked into this, but I played some ECW Historical. Then we got to our first game with a decent amount of troops, it all went bad. When my (small) regiment of Currisarrs blew apart 2 regiments of charging Horse with a stand and fire command (pistols), then followed it up with a charge at a skirmishing firelock company, in the open, which didn't have to check morale to stand a fire at us, and I couldn't rout them in melee, that was it for me.
They make good skirmish gaming rules, however.
Karl
I totally agree. I play games to have fun. Of course, I act in a manner to win, but if I win in a way that isn't fun (let's say huge divergence in die rolls etc.), then it is no good. I get fun from small actions within the game. Even if I lose a game, If my guys did something great within that game, that is what I will remember and what will have made it fun.
ALSO, for those who like WSIM, you can play it for free on-line. Go to youplay.it and sign up. I'm on a few games right now and since it is turn based (of course), I can do it at work when I have a minute or two of down time.
I think of balanced in terms of an equal chance to achieve your victory conditions. These can be completely different to your opponents. Having the same number of ships, either by some point based mechanism or something else is artificial and no real substitute for good scenario design.
I recently came across a comment from a current military traininer (I think) who said if you're fighting a balanced scenario somebody, somewhere screwed up big time.
Now if we get a bit more of an inkling into the rules, maybe Ares will come up with a set of scenario design notes, we can start on creating some ... interesting scenarios.:cool:
I like the way the game Sergeants (Lost Battalion Games) handles this. First each scenario provides each side with several order cards. Each side picks a random order card. So the Germans have a different mission than say the Americas. But since both are doing it on the same turf combat ensues. You get victory points for completing your orders, for prisoners and for killing enemy soldiers. Whoever has the most VPs wins. One game I played both the Americans and the Germans fulfilled their orders but the Germans won by 2VP because they killed the American Sergeant on the last turn. He was worth 7 VP. Different goals, different setup and no gamesmanship. As far from checkers as you can get but totally fair. Fair and by opportunity balanced. It was not balanced by points or some other artificial means. A great game.
Lance, this could make for interesting scenarios. Intriguing mechanism: different orders, victory points for different objectives, etc. Not just head-on fighting.
We played a WoG game this past weekend in which both sides had different targets on the map; needless to say, dogfights ensued. The game ended in a draw.
Eric,
I have always put a lot of thought into scenario design as I always get twitchy when I go to conventions and see game after game where troops are lined up from edge to edge on both sides and they charge and die. No maneuver, no strategy, just the luck of the dice. Without going into a long story, I once refused to attack in a game (never moved the pieces) because I had untrained troops that were supposed to attack elite troop in defensive positions suppported by elite heavy cav and a grand battery over open ground muddy ground (slowing movement). What would be the point?
This is why WoG and SoG, as well as Sergeants appeal to me. Lots of maneuver, a dynamic tactical challenge (aka try to guess their next move), limited attacks and a fair level of randomness (cards). The skill, instincts and luck of the player can therefore work together to provide an awesome game experience!
It is interesting that when I was younger (35 years ago), total annihilation was always the goal within a game - we even bypassed the official rules to play this way. Now, I am interested in nuance, cleverness, and socializing - a more mature way of playing I think. I appreciate beautiful moves - even if they destroy me. I enjoy kibitzing with players. I enjoy thinking, and not just mechanical moving and rolling dice. I have no patience for the type of game you described. As mentioned earlier, I have no problem getting wiped out, even knowing it will happen, if the scenario is interesting and I have the chance to accomplish something.
When we have a set of completed rules and ship stats, I imagine we'll start seeing scenario generation and the building of solo rules. It will be fun to be here since the beginning and witness and be a part of the game's evolution. I really look forward to seeing what folks here will put together.
Agreed!
I don't mean to derail the thread, but I have been curious about Sergeants (due to my quest to play mini's without painting them). I saw you mentioned it and would like your (any anyone else's) opinion about the game. I figure this is good since we share love of WoG so I know we must enjoy and value similar game mechanics.
Anyone can respond or PM me if it is a long one so we don't kill the SoG thread. Thanks to anyone who shares some info!
I will PM you later with a summary but in a word - excellent!
Would you mind starting a thread? I am curious as well, having just seen it on a KS.
Eric,
I will start a thread for that topic but so I do not violate any blog rules I will also talk about ARES games as well. Another snowstorm today has put me behind schedule. Where I live heavy wet snow is not news but it still messes up my day! All I an say is the groundhog was WRONG!! Anyway I will get the thread started today.
I agree with your latter statements about skill, instinct, reading the other player or players in this game. The dynamic works.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks