tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post8245894974603457502..comments2024-03-28T03:10:23.679-07:00Comments on Polemarch: Generals and CommunicationThe Polemarchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-60756036684594120582012-08-20T05:56:44.582-07:002012-08-20T05:56:44.582-07:00Hi,
I think I tend to agree.
The accumulation o...Hi,<br /><br />I think I tend to agree. <br /><br />The accumulation of small results (individual combats in real battles, die rolls in wargames) tends to constrict the next possible moves to a more limited manifold than could have been the case if the result had been different. <br /><br />So the narrative of the battle evolves at each minor point, rather than suddenly changes at one crucial interaction.<br /><br />Anyone got any good counter examples?<br /><br />RegardsThe Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-63761178877843163062012-08-18T11:07:37.749-07:002012-08-18T11:07:37.749-07:00Hi,
I would say that in most cases there is no si...Hi,<br /><br />I would say that in most cases there is no single critical point. Some may argue that for example death of an overall commander is single and critical, but I suppose it plays together with other factors as "a commander too many" or in special cases where the confidence of an army lays on some single person ("the one and only Mahdi" or similar).<br /><br />So, IMVHO I think there is accumulation of small points and critical points are not "one second" instances, but rather the summit of a wave, which are colorfully depicted in literature, because it makes it better to read.<br /><br />Concerning ancient battles, many descriptions seem to point out no more than several critical points. Yet, the battles took many hours, seemingly after these critical points happened as well. So, at the minimum, the critical moment was not so obvious to many of those taking part in the action.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />AdamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-938302000075820132012-08-18T02:15:17.523-07:002012-08-18T02:15:17.523-07:00Hi,
Yes, agreed that many die rolls tend to blur ...Hi,<br /><br />Yes, agreed that many die rolls tend to blur or smear out the luck factor. I've just finished Philip Sabin's Simulating War and he says the same thing. <br /><br />I do wonder, however, if there is a critical point in many battles (both wargame and real) where there is a critical point. Something has to swing one way of the other. <br /><br />Or is it an accumulation of small points which suddenly go critical?<br /><br />RegardsThe Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-20177580155614171432012-08-11T05:01:27.486-07:002012-08-11T05:01:27.486-07:00Hi,
I think using such methods (at least our vers...Hi,<br /><br />I think using such methods (at least our version) requires some imagination (what factors may be in place) and goodwill (so you are willing to accept someone else point of view and not go into pointless argument). Experience also helps a lot - it creates necessary trust between players and makes easier putting up ad hoc alternatives.<br /><br />Concerning heavy dicing - it depends on one's liking, as always, but I suppose many people fall in the trap of thinking that more dice throwing makes a game more random. It is not so, because it depends on probability. Also, more throws usually means that extreme results usually cancel out (I get one here and you get one over there; if one side gets all, well, it is obvious they were blessed this time :) ). So more dice throwing may likely mean a game is less random (which I like).<br /><br />I have seen very nice (playable and seemingly realistic) rulesets with low amount of dice throwing. But I felt really down when one or two bad dice rolls decided the outcome of a whole battle. For some reason it is easier for me to accept defeat when my opponent had to score good rolls 30 times to 20 of mine than just 3:2. I think it is because I feel that "my troops tried hard" (they scored many local successes, however small).<br /><br />Best regards,<br />AdamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-60326600789947039192012-08-11T02:19:36.543-07:002012-08-11T02:19:36.543-07:00Hi,
Thanks for your comments; I think you have a ...Hi,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments; I think you have a good system there, although some might consider it to be a bit dice heavy. You can't please everyone, though.<br /><br />We do seem to come back to this idea of some sort of reaction test for commanders a lot of the time, and there do seem to be some systems for implementing them. <br /><br />I wonder how much we do use them though.<br /><br />Regards.The Polemarchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958736917525649927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5185876513552272723.post-88150251845877472342012-08-09T23:37:10.804-07:002012-08-09T23:37:10.804-07:00Hi,
At our club we have invented something I will...Hi,<br /><br />At our club we have invented something I will translate as "situation assessment test". We use it anytime we come across some situation problem which is not obvious to solve. The test is used to tell what a particular commander, in a particular moment is going to do. It is very universal, so we use it in different war eras.<br /><br />This may be done in different ways, but usually we throw for: "visibility" (how well the commander is aware of what is going on), "optimism" (or lack of it), "skill" (how well the commander organized his actions). We can use the "know all" problem to advantage this way. As gamers we most often know what is most profitable to do in a particular situation. Also we see the more or less exact positions of troops, their strength etc.<br /><br />For example, there is a chance of attacking enemy in superior situation - outnumbered, in bad formation or something similar. But when testing we may end up with the commander having low "visibility" so he will not take advantage as he is not sure what is really going on. Or he could see the opportunity but get a "low skill" assesment, so he could attack but instead of moving around the flank he will hit straigth ahead. We get quite a range of options.<br /><br />When we test both sides or more units, it gets even better, to the point when we create a self-going game (if we test every commander through the chain of command in every situation). It is very nice to use this in creating information submitted between different commanders - when one has "high optimism" he will try to explain his high casaulties with more enemy casaulties or great advantages gained. When "low optimism" one will call for reinforcements despite already having numerical superiority. And so on.<br /><br />This method also works great in campaign games which, I agree, make it much easier to receive feel of what the "fog of war" is.<br /><br />I remember one ACW scenario, which was prepared by myself and I had part of units under my command. Obviously I knew the enemy's possibilities, which included two variants of outflanking march. I used the above method for simulating decisions by the commander I was playing, which ended in a great success for the other side, but the game was very good indeed and looked quite realistic, with "my comander" first deploying some forces on the flank, than sending part of them to attack, and when the danger was imminent, franticly sending and calling reinforcements from other positions.<br /><br />The problem with this method is that you have to game with fairly "gentleman" players, because when someone wants to bend the test to his "needs" there is nothing to stop him. But I suppose solo players should be glad to use it.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />AdamAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com