Re: [MISC] [OT] Bring and Battle

On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Thomas Barclay wrote:

> Pardon? I don't have a problem with that with SG2. Once you have 
> experience at the game, and some mission cards, you can eyeball 
> forces and get a good idea of their relative merits. 

"Once you have experience" is the operative word here. How many games
does
it take to learn a system inside out? *Without* a more experienced
teacher? Let's say I play a game of SG once every three months (typical
for a "sideline" game in my group). Let's say it takes 10 games to learn
the system.

That's two and half *years* of bad experiences (you don't learn unless
you
make mistakes) with SG! Honestly, how many people can be expected to
stick
with the system that long?

Maybe it's my (heretical) background in Car Wars, but I *enjoy*
designing
ships, vehicles, forces etc. and then taking them out for a spin.
Designing is something I can enjoy about the game *alone*, when it suits
me (which is becoming a more and more important consideration). 

I also *enjoy* the uncertainty of not knowing what your opponent is
fielding.

A preset scenario robs me of these pleasures.

I don't have the luxury of a referee (unless it's me). I get to buy all
the rules, learn them, teach them, buy all the minis and paint them --
or
there's no game (unless I go play GW).

And I absolutely hate cardboard counters...

> And no points 
> system is infallible anyway. (I've seen many, and all can be abused 
> by munchkins). Real battle doesn't give you the luxury of picking 
> even sides. 

I think you have a double standard here. It's bad that a point system
creates unequal forces, but if you don't have a point system it's ok to
have unequal forces? 

All $10,000 cars in Car Wars are not equal. Some were designed by better
designers. That's all part of the game, part of the fun. 

> The issue isn't win-lose, its how well you lead your 
> troops and how much fun you had. If you play an unbalanced game, but 
> score enemy casualties out of all proportion, 

You have to *know* what the typical proportion is to know that you did
well (or bad). 

E.g. if I pick a fight with Mike Tyson and manage to get in a few good
punches before getting clobbered, I can be pleased because I know bloody
well Mike's clearly out of my league. But if I pick a fight with a
random
bystander and get the same end result, I can't really say if it's
because
I performed below par or because I was simply outclassed from the outset
-- because I have roughly the same experience in boxing as I have with
SG2.  If it was a paintball game, I could tell. I'm a "pro" 
paintballer,
and I've played enough to know why I lost a particular game.  But it's
just impossible for me to play *all* the games I like to play that much.

Maybe I should just totally stop playing games I can't play at "pro"
level?

(Not that I have a habit of picking fights with anyone).

-- 
maxxon@swob.dna.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) 	   | A pig who doesn't
fly
+358 50 5596411 GSM +358 9 80926 78/FAX 81/Voice   | is just an ordinary
pig.
Maininkitie 3C14 02320 ESPOO FINLAND | Hate me?    |	      - Porco
Rosso
http://www.swob.dna.fi/~maxxon/      | hateme.html |