Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
44 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Liberty or Death: The American Insurrection» Forums » General

Subject: Quick poll on which factions you see win the most often rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Jacob Williams
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm trying to formulate an informed opinion on this game, but I want to get more non-anecdotal evidence.

Poll
Which side do you see win a plurality of the time?
Which side do you see winning a plurality of the time?
British
Indians
French
Patriots
      38 answers
Poll created by ChromiumAgeCollector
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't have enough games under my belt to really tell.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Forrest
Australia
Embleton
Western Australia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
I don't have enough games under my belt to really tell.


Well, so far I only have three - but 100% of them have been won by the French.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Crawford
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
I don't have enough games under my belt to really tell.


Well, even one game is enough to answer the question literally, since it just asks about a plurality... That's the point of gathering data from many people, that it doesn't matter how many games each individual respondent has played.

In any case, very interesting results so far, that definitely mirror my own feelings and experience. It is very hard to stop the French from winning. Particularly when playing the first few times, the tendency for the Patriots is to fight battles, because it helps Support and gives you free guys. But this is actually a bad idea in this game, because it helps the French too much, and the Patriots can't reverse the tide enough to win. It's difficult to recognize that as the Patriots, the way to win is not to fight the British.

With very experienced players, I could see the game being more balanced (as in any multiplayer combat game) because people will play to avoid letting the French get so far ahead. I wonder if during playtesting this imbalance wasn't recognized, because players were familiar with the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Razler
msg tools
Yes - I played like that in the beginning...

Then I came to realize that the French have only "Win the Day" as a means to affect Support vs. Opposition which also risks CRCs for them.

Understanding that, as the Pat player, I back off on the influencing (keeping it within a reasonable range, of course) and start going after Indian villages (which also causes some CRCs) and building Forts. You need to get the Forts vs Villages score solidly in your favor and then time a burst of Opposition to put you over. It's not that hard to do once you realize this and stop playing like it is a traditional war game.

Otherwise, going head on into battling the British, avoiding the Indians, and boosting Opposition hands the game to the French without them having to do much of anything but sit back and watch.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oerjan Ariander
Sweden
HUDDINGE
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
It was recognized, yes.

It was also recognized that the French/Indian advantage pretty much disappears if the Patriot player is aware right from the start of the game that he needs to devote about as much attention to the Indians in the Reserve as he does to the British along the coast.

Because of this, we had to choose between balancing the game for inexperienced Patriot players who focus too much on the British, thus guaranteeing that it would be almost impossible for the French and Indians to win with an experienced Patriot player in the game, or balancing the game for experienced players and accepting that inexperienced players would find the "sidekick" Factions easiest to win with. Of these two alternatives, we picked the latter.

We may have underestimated how long it would take before the Patriot players figured out that they have two equally important enemies, though...

(ninja:ed by John Razler, who clearly has figured it out )

Regards,
Oerjan
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Crawford
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oerjan wrote:
It was recognized, yes.

It was also recognized that the French/Indian advantage pretty much disappears if the Patriot player is aware right from the start of the game that he needs to devote about as much attention to the Indians in the Reserve as he does to the British along the coast.

Because of this, we had to choose between balancing the game for inexperienced Patriot players who focus too much on the British, thus guaranteeing that it would be almost impossible for the French and Indians to win with an experienced Patriot player in the game, or balancing the game for experienced players and accepting that inexperienced players would find the "sidekick" Factions easiest to win with. Of these two alternatives, we picked the latter.

We may have underestimated how long it would take before the Patriot players figured out that they have two equally important enemies, though...

(ninja:ed by John Razler, who clearly has figured it out )

Regards,
Oerjan


Thanks for the reply, that does make sense. I'm glad that you saw that in playtesting. I figured if I phrased my statement that way ("during playtesting this imbalance wasn't recognized") it would bring out a response. It does seem like a tough balance to strike between experienced and inexperienced players.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rex Stites
United States
Lawrence
Kansas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gatchaman wrote:
wifwendell wrote:
I don't have enough games under my belt to really tell.


Well, even one game is enough to answer the question literally, since it just asks about a plurality... That's the point of gathering data from many people, that it doesn't matter how many games each individual respondent has played.


Except it's skewed data. A person that has 10 plays, all French wins; a person with 1 play, and a French win; and a person with 9 plays, and 3 French wins and 2 for the others, will each show up as one vote for France but they each represent drastically different things. The first says the game is unbalanced, the second says nothing about the game because one game is not really enough to say anything about play balance (someone had to win), and the last says the game is probably pretty balanced.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Williams
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In my local group, anything but a French win is unheard of outside of solo games. I wantex to see more data before asserting an opinion.

The game seems really unbalanced towards France. I respect the thought process Orejan shared, but I disagree with it. I feel France should need X amount more CBCs than CRCs to win.

Nother thing I don't like with the win conditions is that it makes this game feel like a team game, at least in my meta. So players on the same team don't care if they are the loser if their team wins.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Walsh
Ireland
Lucan
Co Dublin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
ChromiumAgeCollector wrote:

The game seems really unbalanced towards France. I respect the thought process Orejan shared, but I disagree with it. I feel France should need X amount more CBCs than CRCs to win.

Nother thing I don't like with the win conditions is that it makes this game feel like a team game, at least in my meta. So players on the same team don't care if they are the loser if their team wins.

It sounds like your second problem is the cause of your first problem.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ChromiumAgeCollector wrote:
Nother thing I don't like with the win conditions is that it makes this game feel like a team game, at least in my meta. So players on the same team don't care if they are the loser if their team wins.


I think you can "pull for your side" and at the same time try to win against your partner in the end. That happens to be something that intrigues me about the game (but I don't have enough plays to fully understand how it plays out in practice). If you don't partner up and coordinate you will both likely lose (against skilled players), but who will be the first to start breaking their alliance and go after his/her win condition? That is the interesting question.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Williams
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Amaranth wrote:
ChromiumAgeCollector wrote:

The game seems really unbalanced towards France. I respect the thought process Orejan shared, but I disagree with it. I feel France should need X amount more CBCs than CRCs to win.

Nother thing I don't like with the win conditions is that it makes this game feel like a team game, at least in my meta. So players on the same team don't care if they are the loser if their team wins.

It sounds like your second problem is the cause of your first problem.


Indubitably.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Harold Buchanan
United States
RSF
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Balance and the French
The complexity level of Liberty or Death is high. As such, it will take multiple plays to learn the strategies to win the game. The complexity for the British is higher than the French and Indians. The Patriot Faction is higher in complexity than all the other factions. It is clear to me that an inexperienced / unsophisticated Patriot player will make mistakes that will give the game to the French. I like that – I don’t want to design a game that protects players from themselves and rewards players with little experience. It is also clear to me that if the Patriot player plays Liberty or Death like a traditional wargame, built around battle and 2 player models, and they don’t fight the frontier war, they will give the game to the French. I also like that. If the French are winning, the Patriot players have more work to do to figure out the game. If you aren’t willing to learn or you want to play the game once, it will be imbalanced – and I have no problem with that. I designed the game to pay dividends to the Patriot player who focuses on objectives and learns to play a game based on more than battle.

By the way, this tracks history. Washington never wanted to fight the British toe to toe on the traditional 18th Century battlefield. Sure he wanted to win but he knew he had to change the rules. Washington was known as the Master of Retreat not because he tried to fight toe to toe with the British but because he masterfully executed a mobile campaign staying away from the greatest army in the world. He also invested a significant amount of time and resource in the frontier war. There is a great deal of literature that supports this and can be eye opening. I am happy to share but it can also be found in the Liberty or Death Playbook.

Liberty or Death is a team game. Two Factions possess common enemies thus they are a “team”. But just because we share a common enemy does not mean we agree on everything. In the end I am presenting a more complex model than a simple “team” construct. I am presenting a model where shared goals are not exclusive goals. This is much more complex than playing a traditional Am Rev wargame and it will take some time to figure out.

It is interesting to me that so much time is spent complaining about balance while so little is spent discussing strategies to win for each Faction. My guess is it is the easier to complain about it rather than solve the strategy problem. Strategies are hard and take time and thoughtfulness. It also requires a keen sense of analysis. It is clear the sophistication of the Patriot and British player makes a difference in French competitiveness. I would suggest when we assemble the players for a four player game it is best to assign the roles of the Patriot and British player to the most experienced/cerebral gamer. It will improve the quality of the game for all.

In the upcoming C3i 30 there will be an extensive strategy guide. That should help those of you prone to the analysis and strategy.

I will close with something I have said before. If you don’t like something – change it. Let us know how it goes – maybe you will find something better. A solution is much more important to the community than a complaint. A solution is also harder to find.

HB
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Williams
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hankhankhank wrote:
The complexity level of Liberty or Death is high. As such, it will take multiple plays to learn the strategies to win the game.


While I really do appreciate this, I have a hard enough time convincing local players to give this game a try. It's even more difficult when one play makes it seem that one side is much more likely to win than another. I didn't buy this to be a solo only game, and I could have saved some serious money playing it for free on Vassal. So it's really important to me that it have broad appeal. A seeming imbalance lowers a game's appeal.


hankhankhank wrote:
It is clear to me that an inexperienced / unsophisticated Patriot player will make mistakes that will give the game to the French. I like that


I don't like that. I have the utmost respect for your time and passion on the subject, so please don't take that as anything other than disagreeing with your design choice.


hankhankhank wrote:
If you aren’t willing to learn or you want to play the game once, it will be imbalanced – and I have no problem with that.


I think people in general don't want to play a game that is perceived to be so imbalanced. To me it seems like you have put a litmus test on your game, and that you only want die hard fans playing it. This is fine, but if this is the case, then you will have to accept that people don't like. I bought the game, so I feel I have every right to voice my criticism in a respectful way. That's the whole reason why I asked for people's play experience instead of just asserting an opinion that wasn't based on some evidence.

hankhankhank wrote:
By the way, this tracks history. Washington never wanted to fight the British toe to toe on the traditional 18th Century battlefield. Sure he wanted to win but he knew he had to change the rules. Washington was known as the Master of Retreat not because he tried to fight toe to toe with the British but because he masterfully executed a mobile campaign staying away from the greatest army in the world. He also invested a significant amount of time and resource in the frontier war. There is a great deal of literature that supports this and can be eye opening. I am happy to share but it can also be found in the Liberty or Death Playbook.


I have no doubt that you have the history as accurate as it can be. But I have found that historical war games can either be historically correct or fun to play. Few are the games that can be both. In my opinion, which I know tons of people disagree with, this game leans more historical than fun to play. It seems you are okay with that, but it does prevent me from getting it to the table. So please understand my disappointment in a game with an $80 price point.

hankhankhank wrote:
Liberty or Death is a team game. Two Factions possess common enemies thus they are a “team”. But just because we share a common enemy does not mean we agree on everything.


But when you've designed it so that it doesn't feel like a lose when your team wins, it's a problem, in my opinion. The French and Colonists work together much better than the British and Indians. Thus more perceived

hankhankhank wrote:
This is much more complex than playing a traditional Am Rev wargame and it will take some time to figure out.


Great! What do you say to those people who don't care for the game enough to take the time to figure it out? And not because they aren't interested in the subject material, but because they feel they should choose factions, just assume the French player wins, and move on to another game.

hankhankhank wrote:
It is interesting to me that so much time is spent complaining about balance while so little is spent discussing strategies to win for each Faction.


Again it's hard to get excited enough for a game to develop deep strategies when you have a bad first experience. Can you not empathize at least a little with this point of view?

hankhankhank wrote:
I would suggest when we assemble the players for a four player game it is best to assign the roles of the Patriot and British player to the most experienced/cerebral gamer. It will improve the quality of the game for all.


The game should be quality without having to make such tweaks. Just like it's a sign of a bad design when the main balancing mechanism is to pile on the leader (e.g. Munchkin, Age of Renaissance, etc.)

hankhankhank wrote:
I will close with something I have said before. If you don’t like something – change it.


I shouldn't have to make changes to an $80 game that spent years in development.

hankhankhank wrote:
A solution is much more important to the community than a complaint. A solution is also harder to find.

HB


If you recall, I did propose a solution. That CBC + X > CRC. I just don't know what X equals.


Let me say, that I don't dislike your game per se. In fact, I do want to play it more. But I can't convince my friends to play it more. Honestly the French winning every game I have heard of locally, is not the main reason it doesn't see more play, but I think it is a factor. The whole point of this post wasn't to berate your work. It actually was a first step in analyzing your game. How can I make an assertion that French are more likely to win in most games if that isn't the experience of players outside of my group?

I don't know what else to say on the matter outside of a sincere apology if you felt that I was trying to take a crap on your hard work. That was never my intention.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Razler
msg tools
Every game is imbalanced if you don't take the time and put in the effort to play it properly.

For example, if you swing at every pitch playing baseball you will strike out more often than not; especially when pitchers figure this out about your approach. Sure, it is gratifying to hit home runs, but that is not all the game is about.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oerjan Ariander
Sweden
HUDDINGE
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Jacob, I'm sorry, but you sound very much as if you expected LoD to be a Eurogame or Ameritrash with a vaguely historical theme similar to Axis and Allies. (To use a car analogy, you come across as someone who has bought a high-powered sports car and is now upset because it doesn't have enough room for a weekly grocery shopping run with the entire family.)

If that is the case, then I fully understand your disappointment - you expected the game to be something completely different from what the COIN series was intended to be.

The COIN series is an offshoot from the heavy wargames tradition, which is as much about what-if exploration and education as about amusement and where players are expected to invest a significant amount of time learning a game and investigating its options. The COINs are lighter than the really heavy wargames of old both in terms of the amount of rules and in the number of components; they require far less of an investment than say Advanced Squad Leader or Third Reich - but that still doesn't make them Euros.

To those players who don't want to invest the time needed to grok the game, the only thing there is to say is this: We're sorry, but you are not our intended target audience. There are hundreds of other, less demanding games that you are much more to enjoy instead.

We are wargamers. We don't design wargames for profit, but for our own enjoyment and for the enjoyment of other wargamers. If other types of players also enjoy our designs, that's a nice bonus; but we are not going to change our design goals to accomodate those other types of players - because then we won't enjoy playing our own designs. And if we don't enjoy playing them, we'll never stick with them long enough to design and develop them...

Regards,
Oerjan
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Williams
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oerjan wrote:
Jacob, I'm sorry, but you sound very much as if you expected LoD to be a Eurogame or Ameritrash with a vaguely historical theme similar to Axis and Allies. (To use a car analogy, you come across as someone who has bought a high-powered sports car and is now upset because it doesn't have enough room for a weekly grocery shopping run with the entire family.)

If that is the case,


It's not the case.

I didn't quote the rest of your post because you're entrenching. You're basically saying "Harold chose to do it this way, and if you don't like it, there is definitely something wrong with you as a war gamer because there's surely nothing legitimate to criticize about the game". That's a really weak argument and doesn't advance any deeper discussion.

Also you clearly didn't take the time to remember all the threads of mine you've answered for me on other COIN games (Which I can actually understand. There is only one Orejan, but tons of us from your POV)or look at my games profile to see the high marks I have given other COIN games. But thanks for trying to de-legitimize my opinions based on bad assumptions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Razler
msg tools
In my own experience, what got me out of the "rut" of frequent French victories was playing a few solo games against the Pat bot.

I suggest that you do that and then challenge your friends to a game with you as the Pat player. If you employ some of the tactics you learn from observing the Pat bot, I think you might convince your friends (and yourself) that this game isn't as imbalanced as you first thought.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oerjan Ariander
Sweden
HUDDINGE
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
No, Jacob, there's nothing "definitely wrong with you as a wargamer" for not liking LoD. You just seem to mostly enjoy other types of games than I or Harold do. And I do remember all those other threads of yours; they have all contributed to the impression I have of you as expecting the COIN series to be something quite different than what it actually is.

Thing is, pretty much all your critizisms in this thread (except for the one about the Rebels being better at cooperating than the Royalists, and that one I find to be inaccurate for experienced players) are based on the fact that LoD doesn't suit your preferences, and the way you have described your preferences for boardgames in this and previous threads makes it crystal clear that they don't have many similarities at all to my preferences. For example, when you write:
Quote:
But I have found that historical war games can either be historically correct or fun to play.

- well, for me historical accuracy (in the "what could plausibly have happened if the leaders had made other choices" sense) is what makes wargames fun, and I find most history-themed Ameritrash games like Axis and Allies quite boring precisely because they have so little to do with actual history. (And as for Euros - well, even the most "history-themed" of those only have at best the name and some map features in common with history. I can enjoy them as games, but only by completely disregarding any claims they make about history.)

That doesn't make your opinion "wrong" or my opinion "right". It just means that you aren't part of the market segment I develop games for: I develop and play games that I like, you play games that you like, and for the most part those two sets of games don't overlap. For me, this isn't a problem. I'm not trying to make you like my games; I'm just trying toexplain what these games are intended to be, and give you some ideas about different strategies to try.

In this thread, you have recieved several pieces of advice from several different pieole regarding what causes all those French victories and how you could change your game strategies to change the balance away from the French. Your response has been to tell Harold how the game should be designed to be balanced for the game strategies you and your group are currently using, without you having adapt your strategies in any way. In effect, what you are doing when you write things that is to demand that we include you in our target audience. Sorry, but you're no more entitled to make that demand than you'd be entitled to demand that an author writes his novels to your liking.

Regards,
Oerjan
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Williams
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oerjan wrote:
For example, when you write:
Quote:
But I have found that historical war games can either be historically correct or fun to play.

- well, for me historical accuracy (in the "what could plausibly have happened if the leaders had made other choices" sense) is what makes wargames fun


Let me focus in on this. Let's say there is a board game about the Battle of Thermopylae. If you make it 100% historically accurate (ignoring inaccuracies due to bad accounts of the events), then there is never any point to playing because Xerxes always wins in a crushing victory. If you set alternate win conditions on Leonidas, then the Spartans can win. One of the cases is historical. One is fun to play. The difficulty of a Spartan win puts it somewhere in between.

Yes, I think games should be designed in such a way that players of equal skill level should have equal chances of winning. I play board games to have fun. If I wanted absolute historical knowledge of events, then there are better learning tools than board games. Perhaps this is what puts us out of sync?


Oerjan wrote:
It just means that you aren't part of the market segment I develop games for


I don't think this is necessarily true. Moreover, I really enjoy every other COIN game I've played (which is all of them except ADP). While I may not quite be a grognard, I rather enjoy historical war games. When you say stuff like this, it makes me think you want to write me off as a "customer". Wouldn't you rather take my feedback seriously so that I can be a bigger advocate for your games?

Please keep in mind I don't know what taking my feedback seriously looks like. I definitely am not saying change things because I said so, but it's also not dismissing me by saying I'm not in the target demo.

Oerjan wrote:
In this thread, you have recieved several pieces of advice from several different pieole regarding what causes all those French victories and how you could change your game strategies to change the balance away from the French.


It seems to me that most of that advice is: have more experienced players play the Colonists because historically the colonists didn't want to fight the British.

At this point, I'm done with this line of argument. You seem comfortable with writing me off as a person who would be interested in your games because I think they should be balanced for players of equal skill, and I'm really close to writing off games that Harold designs because he's just going to make the decisions he wants to make regardless of whether it makes the game fun or not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Razler
msg tools
Oh, come on now...

Did you even read my suggestions?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Williams
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
razlerja wrote:
Oh, come on now...

Did you even read my suggestions?


Yes, you did provide good advice with using the bot as a guideline. Thank you. I may try that next time I play.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Goulette
United States
Santa Clara
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I wanted to add a comment about "group think."

This has been a very interesting discussion. I just wanted to add one impression I have about LoD and COIN in general that I think is applicable to the discussion above.

There are games that I find have a propensity for "group think." I find these games have the following:

A) 3+ players
B) High player interaction
C) A large decision space.

Most euro games do not have B) and only some have C). Most war games do not have A).

Examples of games that do have all three elements.:
1) Poker
2) Food Chain Magnate
3) COIN in general

Poker.
If everybody at the table is playing tight (afraid to bluff, only bets when they have the cards etc.) then the game will largely be decided by who gets the best card draws. Someone may say "that game is all luck!" Then one person comes to the table that bluffs at the right times, mixes their bet sizes, etc. That new player will win big. Conversely, if you play tight at a loose table where everybody is throwing around money, you will win. I find that a group of friends that get together often determine the style of play at the table and people don't realize that group think is happening.

Food Chain Magnate
I won't go deep here since many probably have not played it, but if everybody does the same strategy of moving up the tech tree in the same manner, then one player will eventually eek out a victory because they are all competing in the same space. But if you KNOW the other players will have similar strategy, then you can play off of that. If you slightly alter that "table strategy," then the others will beat each other up in their space (have a price war, etc.) and you will win due to lack of competition.

COIN
Clearly there were good suggestions above about alternate things to try if you are the Patriots. But I will add another. If you know the French always win at your table, and you are the patriots, negotiate with the Indians or the British. "So, I won't attack your space here until after the next winter card, if you help me by attacking the French there right now. Deal?" If they say no, discuss alternatives to beat down the French. Get both the Indian and British factions in on the discussion. Eventually the French will say "wait a minute, how can we work together here..." and then you will add the negotiation layer to the game that COIN has built right into the design. In fact, I think the meta game possibilities with COIN (especially negotiation) is where the game may really shine. (I have not played enough to experience this, but I see all the key ingredients.)

Just some thoughts.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oerjan Ariander
Sweden
HUDDINGE
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
ChromiumAgeCollector wrote:
Oerjan wrote:
For example, when you write:
Quote:
But I have found that historical war games can either be historically correct or fun to play.

- well, for me historical accuracy (in the "what could plausibly have happened if the leaders had made other choices" sense) is what makes wargames fun


Let me focus in on this. Let's say there is a board game about the Battle of Thermopylae. If you make it 100% historically accurate (ignoring inaccuracies due to bad accounts of the events), then there is never any point to playing because Xerxes always wins in a crushing victory. If you set alternate win conditions on Leonidas, then the Spartans can win. One of the cases is historical. One is fun to play. The difficulty of a Spartan win puts it somewhere in between.

Yes, let's: it puts the spotlight on the importance of knowing what "victory" actually meant in the historical context.

Thermopylae had around 7000 Greeks defending a stone wall across the pass, facing a Persian army at least ten times their number and possibly much larger still. The historical Greek plan was not to destroy the Persian army; it was merely to block the pass until the Persians ran out of food and were forced to withdraw or starve. Sounds like a really fun game, doesn't it? Of course, in order to get this outcome you'd have to ahistorically remove the mountain paths that the Persians historically used to outflank the Greek position.

Those mountain paths did exist though, and the Persians are said to have sent some 20000 infantry along them - they were too steep for cavalry - to attack the Greeks from behind. In order to buy time for the main part of the Greek army to withdraw without being ridden down by the Persian cavalry, Leonidas and 1000-1500 men with him fought a desperate rear guard action. (Or, if you believe another version of the chronology, he fought the action because the Greek combined fleet had just been defeated off Artemisium and needed time to get past the narrows at Chalcis before the Persian cavalry could block them.)

At this point, the battle shifts from an rather boring frontal stalemate to a tense rear-guard action: can Leonidas hold up the Persians long enough for the rest of the army (or the fleet, whichever) to escape before his remaining force is wiped out? Historically he succeeded, but it does seem to have been a close-run thing. And there you have a historically accurate set of victory conditions for Thermopylae that are achievable for both sides: the Persians need to clear the pass quickly enough for their cavalry to catch the retreating part of the Greek forces, while Leonidas needs to hold the pass for long enough for the rest of the Greeks to escape... and the historical end state in game terms was a Greek victory, not a Persian one, since the main Greek force did escape to fight another day.

So, which "victory conditions" would be most fun: the actual historical ones of holding the pass for long enough to let the rest of the Greeks escape, or the ones the Greeks originally aimed for that consisted of just staying in place until the Persians ran out of food and had to leave, or a completely made-up version where the situation is changed so much that the Greeks could actually defeat the Persian army?

For me, the actual historical situation - the rear-guard action - is by far the most interesting one of those three. If I want stand-up fights where the Greeks fought the Persians with roughly equal force sizes, I'll refight Plataea instead.

Quote:
Yes, I think games should be designed in such a way that players of equal skill level should have equal chances of winning.

What you have described in your previous posts is a situation where the players are of equally low skill level, but where some of them haven't yet understood the strategic goals of the various factions (including their own) and therefore use poor strategies. If you really do think that all players should have an equal chance of winning in that situation, i.e., even when some of them use poor strategies, then let us just agree to disagree.

I think that games should be designed in such a way that players of equally high skill level, who do have a good grasp of the strategic goals of all factions involved, should have equal chances of winning.

Unfortunately I don't believe it is possible to design a game that is balanced both in the situation where all players understand the strategic goals and in the situation where some of them don't.

Quote:
I play board games to have fun. If I wanted absolute historical knowledge of events, then there are better learning tools than board games. Perhaps this is what puts us out of sync?

Yes, that sounds very likely. I find historical wargames' ability to present me with at least some of the historical choices and tradeoffs faced by the various war leaders to be one of the most powerful learning tools available for understanding historical conflicts. And I'm not alone in that; it is no coincidence that military academies for the past couple of centuries (since 1811) have been using wargames of various kinds - including modern boardgames, in recent decades - to train officers in decision-making.

Quote:
Oerjan wrote:
It just means that you aren't part of the market segment I develop games for

I don't think this is necessarily true.

In the thread above, you state that you disagree with most of the design choices described to you, one after the other. Applying your feedback to my game development would mean developing games that I myself would not enjoy.

Quote:
Wouldn't you rather take my feedback seriously so that I can be a bigger advocate for your games?

Taking your feedback seriously means accepting that we have such different ideals for game designs, and such different ideas about what constitutes "fun" in gaming, that my games will probably not be to your liking. I am taking you seriously.

Quote:
Oerjan wrote:
In this thread, you have recieved several pieces of advice from several different pieole regarding what causes all those French victories and how you could change your game strategies to change the balance away from the French.


It seems to me that most of that advice is: have more experienced players play the Colonists because historically the colonists didn't want to fight the British.

The core piece of advice that you have been given is to have the Patriots fight the Indians, instead of concentrating almost exclusively on the British. The "more experienced" part is because inexperienced players tend to forget to do this and therefore often end up giving the game to the French.

Regards,
Oerjan
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Volko Ruhnke
United States
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
anaturalharmonic wrote:
I wanted to add a comment about "group think."
...

Poker.
If everybody at the table is playing tight (afraid to bluff, only bets when they have the cards etc.) then the game will largely be decided by who gets the best card draws. Someone may say "that game is all luck!" Then one person comes to the table that bluffs at the right times, mixes their bet sizes, etc. That new player will win big. Conversely, if you play tight at a loose table where everybody is throwing around money, you will win. I find that a group of friends that get together often determine the style of play at the table and people don't realize that group think is happening...
.

That's really interesting about "tight" and "loose" Poker tables and player interaction -- that seemingly more basic play can win if everyone else plays the game with more subtlety!!

That's a terrific example of the idea that adaptation matters, not just (and perhaps more than) the rules at the outset. vfr
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.