RE: Initiative - was RE: Piquet

--- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
> Most of the games I play, I prefer that there be
> opportunities to act and react, to generate and
> counter local advantages, which the overall
> initiative system of Piquet doesn't generate.  It
> provides for massed advantages (one entire side or
> player) vs. just the left flank or even individual
> units showing unusual elan or aggressiveness that
> beat back an attack and won the day.	The
> plain-vanilla version of Piquet definitely favors
> the aggressive player over the passive player.

True, but I think it's historically true that
aggressive (not stupid or bull headed) commanders are
generally more sucessful than passive ones (especially
at the lower command levels).

> Historically battles are not won or lost by the
> commanding general's initiative, but by his
> knowledge of the battle conditions.  Most often you
> hear of reserves committed to late, or an attack
> initiated too late to take advantage of a local
> weakness in the lines.  These errors occurred, not
> because the general was slow in giving the order
> after the appropriate infomation was available, but
> is almost always due to incomplete information being
> available to the general in a timely fashion.  Most
> war games have the defect that player-generals have
> a vastly better picture of the battle, the units
> involved and their abilities, than any historical
> general has ever had.  Just setting up the game
> provides a huge amount of intelligence - you know
> the terrain (no booby-traps, unknown ravines or
> cliffs, or "secret paths" through the forests), you
> know your opponent's force size and location (unless
> you are allowing flank marches or hidden units), you
> know the abilities of your opponent'!
>  s forces (no suprise super-weapons) and you know
> your opponent will engage your forces (no waiting it
> out for days and days and days).  With just this
> information a player is able to reduce the command
> decisions dramatically, no decision for re-supply,
> weather, communication lines, worry about opposing
> reinforcements, flank attacks, terrain or man-made
> traps, super-weapons, feints or probing attacks vs.
> the start of an assault, etc. etc. etc.

I think this is exactly what PK is trying to convey;
despite a nice map with pretty units all over it, your
intelligence about your units (let alone the enemy's)
is always inaccurate. Also, I think the initiative
system less reflects "Commander Initiative" than the
overall initiative of friendly forces.

> To truly generate "historical" results, the key
> factor is to reduce or eliminate player knowledge of
> specific details of the battle.  You would receive
> messages from the front, and send out orders the
> same way and plot locations of your units on a map,
> which may or may not reflect their actual positions
> on the board. Reports may be delayed or units wiped
> out with no information as to their demise.  Even
> modern commanders, with radios, GPS, computers and
> real-time video still have only a hazy idea of the
> locations and condition of the troops under their
> control, and are very dependent on the commanders on
> the scene to make the right decisions at the right
> time to influence the battle that they are in.  

I've played a few games like this at Havoc in Boston,
what a blast! 

> For those reasons I prefer games to have some degree
> of responsiveness - even if just Overwatch or
> pass-through fire to allow units to react to a local
> condition, even if orders from a higher command
> aren't forthcoming or a side didn't win initiative
> for that turn.

PK does allow op fire (assuming you've stored reaction
pips).

-Adrian

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?	Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com