Re: [MISC] [OT] Bring and Battle

Mikko spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> 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?

If I find a good system, I stick with it. Period. 

Although I do take your point about the fickle masses, I'd also point 
out that some things hard to learn are worth mastering AND many 
things with a point system give you an illusion of balance that 
rarely bears out.  

> 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.

Okay, in that sense, I've played Car Wars, Traveller (N 
incarnations), own Guns!Guns!Guns! and I too love to design ships and 
other stuff and see how it works (I actually, being a software dude, 
believe my talents lie here anyways). 

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

If you don't care whether you win or lose, and love to game, then 
balance isn't so important. 
 
> A preset scenario robs me of these pleasures.

depends. But in some extent yes, but this is the opposite complaint 
of the other fellow. If he didn't like designing a scenario, he sure 
won't want to spend the time designing formations or vehicles. So the 
preset scenarios fill that niche. With enough of them, and enough 
force cards, its never the same game twice.  

> 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).

Familiar with that. Sigh. 
 
> And I absolutely hate cardboard counters...

I like dual maps and hidden movement - old microarmour relfexes. 
 
> 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? 

No, but games with a point system often revolve around equal odds 
battles, thus missing much fun. Besides, points are often used to 
calculate 'victory'. If you don't care about that, but you care about 
playing, only gross imbalance is an issue and I think common sense 
can help you avoid that. 

Besides, I wouldn't cry if Jon came up with a point system, I just 
know it would spark N debates and have M loopholes. So I'd still be 
stuck using judgement. 

> 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. 

Sure, but I don't think the granularity of vehicle or force design in 
FMA systems is enough to allow the same level of distinction. Given, 
someone who brought nothing but AA troops to the table would get 
beaten up, but that isn't the same. And custom force design DOES NOT 
address the issue of time that the other player said he didn't have 
to spend. He sounded like someone who'd like a preset formation list 
so no contention exists run within preset scenarios with preset 
conditions for win/loss. This can be done. Without points.  

> > 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). 

I think judgement, experience, and maturity as a gamer are huge 
assets here. I've seen plenty of point based victories that I didn't 
agree with the estimate of the outcome because points are such a 
rough tool.
  
> 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.

Except in SG2, you know all the other sides stats. From that, and 
experience (admittedly not free) you can judge. 

  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.

Experience. Did you quit after the first few times when you got hosed 
in the early days because you didn't have a point system? No. Then 
why quit a game under the same situaiton? Gain experience. Then you 
know WHY things work or don't. Points are, IMHO, a poor substitute. 

  But it's
> just impossible for me to play *all* the games I like to play that
much.

Fair. We all make choices. 
 
> Maybe I should just totally stop playing games I can't play at "pro"
> level?

or accept that (like life) some things take experience to truly 
understand. Or you can live under the sometimes false illusion of a 
points system for balance. Which can be munchkinized or min-maxed by 
the wise - not always to the betterment of game play. I'm not even 
sure one should BE designing stuff until one has experience, because 
you don't (even with points) understand the impact on the system.  

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

Unlike some of the other soft boned and very sensitive people on the 
list, I don't take it personally. I'd have to know you personally to 
know if you were combative and obnoxious (and vice versa), so I 
always assume its 'discussion' not fights or insults.  

Fun talking with you, Mikko. 

BTW, can you attempt an english phoenetic tranlation of your name? 
I'll guess at MEE-KAH KOOR-KEY SUE-OH-NEE-OH but I may be about as 
far off as any gaijin westerner trying to pronounce Morihei Ueshiba 
or Miyamoto Musashi. 

Tom.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/