It's been about five years since my step-son last played a game with me. He is into computer games (and was into Warhammer). He never liked Euros (except Settlers when he was little), CCGs, or anything that didn't involve visceral killing and complex war strategies.
Upon recommendations, I picked up Age of Empires III on my last visit to the US. While I understood that it is a Euro, I also hoped it might tempt my step-son, who had played the computer game, and who had, at least, looked curiously at some of my other recent Euros that sported pictures of generals and armies (though typically had no combat). So I was thrilled that he was willing to try it.
AoE3 (at least, for two players) is not really a war game, less of one than either Antike or what I remember of Wallenstein (played once about four years ago). But the combat is in there, and we did use it; actually I used it first and more viciously than he did. I'm a big fan of "remove one for one" combat in comparison to dice rolling; my step-son prefers the dice rolling.
Actually, AoE3 is a game of worker-placement, resource-management, and area control. The object is to earn the most victory points, which you get from a) buildings (ala Puerto Rico and Caylus), b) areas discovered, c) your end-of-the-game income (excepting any bonuses from buildings), and d) three times during the game from areas controlled.
Each round you have five guys to allocate between a) turn order, b) moving to the areas, c) adding guys to your contingent ready to discover an area/discovering an area, d) buying a building, e) getting an additional special guy to use next round, f) taking an income source, or g) declaring your intention to battle.
The income sources are various commodities, which you can also get from discovering one of the areas on the board, as well as one "wild" commodity. Three of any commodity gives you $1 income, three of a kind gives $3, and four of a kind gives $6. Money is good for buying buildings, declaring a total war on another player (rare), or (useful only in a game with multiple players) one space that lets you buy a special guy for use on the next round.
The special guys are worth double value, or give you income once, or can be used to shoot the other player's guys in an area during a battle.
Each area has an initially-secret strength you have to overcome during discovery (essentially, how many Indians you have to slaughter :-( ). When you run out of areas, you can still discover areas off the board for more victory points, but you don't actually move guys to them. Control of an area is worth 6 points, second place is 2 points; this is counted three times during the game.
In our game, we both scored about equal for this over the three scorings.
At the end of the game, you also score your income levels. I scored a bit higher for that. You also score your discovered territories. Again I scored a bit higher for that.
Lastly you score your buildings. The big point-scoring buildings only appear in the last two round of the game, so it is essential to be first or second to claim these in one of these rounds. My step-son miscalculated the importance of these, and his buildings only amounted to some 17 points total, while mine totaled some 35 or 40. Earlier buildings give you bonus cash, bonus guys each round, bonus income, etc...
Oh yes, combat. If you declared combat, you can pick one player in one region and have each of your soldiers in that region remove one of the other player's guys. If you pay $10, you may instead declare total war against a player and have this occur in every region of the board. I killed a few of his guys first, and then he loaded the board up with more soldiers. The object, of course, is to be the one with the most in an area during scoring turns.
The game is a scant 8 turns long. The entire game took us about 45 minutes on our first play, which was impressive, maybe even a little too short. We could both tell that the game becomes richer and more competitive with multiple players, so probably 4 or 5 players is ideal.
I quite enjoyed it, and my step-son thought it was a good game, though he would have liked more dice and more combat. I'm looking forward to trying it out with the game group.
---
This week has been overwhelming: I'm essentially working two jobs (I missed a lot of work in the US), keeping up my blogging, fixing a whole lot of things, dealing with various money issues, and cleaning for Pesach while the wife is away (coming on Friday). And I started the week with a bad stomach virus of some kind.
I had to cancel both game night this week and games day I usually host over Pesach. Luckily, one of my gamers is hosting a smaller version of games day at her house, which I will try to attend after work next week.
A video review of It's Alive.
Showing posts with label war games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war games. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Sunday, October 15, 2006
When the Game Doesn't Change
What do you get when you take a game, and you change the name, the graphics, the shape of the playing pieces, add a small change to the rules here and there, and you're done? And then you do it again. And again, and again, and again.
Am I talking about Monopoly?
People no longer buy Monopoly because of the gameplay. They buy it because of the theme. Either the theme evokes nostalgia, or looks pretty, or is associated with some brand that they like. The fun in playing the game has to do with the shape of the pieces, the familiarity of concepts on the board and cards. The game itself is always the same, and no one really cares about the game of Monopoly.
Or am I talking about war games?
Yikes. Now I'm entering dangerous territory. OK, I admit that there are more differences in game play between the thousands of war games than the thousands of versions of Monopoly. But.
Very simple games have barely any tactics or strategy, or none at all.
Better games have tight rulesets and constrained actions, giving them very specific types of strategies and tactics. A game of Chess is entirely different from a game of Go. Each has very narrow rules, and the game possibilities seem to flourish, not despite, but because of those rules. It's the same way that a sonnet with it's archaic and confined meter and rhyme result in poetry that is so much harder to achieve with free verse.
I have always admired "war games", but that is mostly because I have played so few of them. I admire them because they have so much strategy and so much tactics, the field is just wide open. But.
I've also noticed in the few five or ten war games that I've played that they all seem kind of the same. The same basic strategies and the same basic tactics seem to work over and over. Which either means that I have somehow managed to find five or ten very similar war games (and they weren't, really) or that there is something lost in opening up the field so much and allowing for so much strategy and tactics.
Update: A few hours after I posted this I realized that I am wrong. Or, probably wrong. What I wrote was like writing that all people of a certain culture all look alike. Once you get to know the culture, you realize how different they all are. This is probably true about war games as well. I am probably just looking in the wrong place. The things that I look for in games may not be different in each war game, but there may be all sorts of things that are.
If all strategy and tactics can be applied to game after game, then the same best strategy and tactics are going to apply to game after game. What you have, is the same game, with a changed name, graphics, shape of the playing pieces, and small changes to the rules here and there. And a different theme.
But wait a minute. Maybe I'm talking about video games!
There are only a few major types of video games: RTS, RTT, civ building, and so on. I've played even less video games than I've played war games, so I'm probably off my gourd here, but: does RTS equal Monopoly? Is every RTS game simply the same game with the pictures changed and a few changes to the rules? Do you play the next game because the game play is so different, or because of the shape of the pieces and the familiarity of concepts on the weapons list and enemy fighters?
And the more open and freeform the video game, the more likely that it will feel just like a previous game, if you 'close your eyes'. Been there, done that. The only thing new is the shapes and icons.
Update: And the same comment may also apply to video games. Comments, anyone?
It seems to me that the only way to get something different is to limit your game to having less strategic and tactical options. The game play is then about making the most of what you have, not about being the best you can be in a completely freeform environment.
That is pretty much where Eurogames fit in. Sure, there are way too many of those, too, and a whole lot of them feel like retreads of previous Eurogames, too. But there are a whole lot more categories of Eurogames, because Eurogame don't put the whole kit and caboodle into every game, just a few combinations thereof.
It's simple combinatorial theory, actually. If you choose 1 item out of 10, you have 10 choices. If you choose 2 items, you have 45 choices. 3 is 120, 4 is 210, 5 is 252, 6 is 210, 7 is 120, 8 is 45, and 9 is 10.
If there exist 10 tactical options in the entire world, every game with all 10 options is going to be exactly the same. There are only 10 games each of those with only 1 or 9 tactical options, and they will get old fast. Different and interesting games exist only in the 2 to 8 tactical option range.
Yehuda
Am I talking about Monopoly?
People no longer buy Monopoly because of the gameplay. They buy it because of the theme. Either the theme evokes nostalgia, or looks pretty, or is associated with some brand that they like. The fun in playing the game has to do with the shape of the pieces, the familiarity of concepts on the board and cards. The game itself is always the same, and no one really cares about the game of Monopoly.
Or am I talking about war games?
Yikes. Now I'm entering dangerous territory. OK, I admit that there are more differences in game play between the thousands of war games than the thousands of versions of Monopoly. But.
Very simple games have barely any tactics or strategy, or none at all.
Better games have tight rulesets and constrained actions, giving them very specific types of strategies and tactics. A game of Chess is entirely different from a game of Go. Each has very narrow rules, and the game possibilities seem to flourish, not despite, but because of those rules. It's the same way that a sonnet with it's archaic and confined meter and rhyme result in poetry that is so much harder to achieve with free verse.
I have always admired "war games", but that is mostly because I have played so few of them. I admire them because they have so much strategy and so much tactics, the field is just wide open. But.
Update: A few hours after I posted this I realized that I am wrong. Or, probably wrong. What I wrote was like writing that all people of a certain culture all look alike. Once you get to know the culture, you realize how different they all are. This is probably true about war games as well. I am probably just looking in the wrong place. The things that I look for in games may not be different in each war game, but there may be all sorts of things that are.
If all strategy and tactics can be applied to game after game, then the same best strategy and tactics are going to apply to game after game. What you have, is the same game, with a changed name, graphics, shape of the playing pieces, and small changes to the rules here and there. And a different theme.
But wait a minute. Maybe I'm talking about video games!
There are only a few major types of video games: RTS, RTT, civ building, and so on. I've played even less video games than I've played war games, so I'm probably off my gourd here, but: does RTS equal Monopoly? Is every RTS game simply the same game with the pictures changed and a few changes to the rules? Do you play the next game because the game play is so different, or because of the shape of the pieces and the familiarity of concepts on the weapons list and enemy fighters?
And the more open and freeform the video game, the more likely that it will feel just like a previous game, if you 'close your eyes'. Been there, done that. The only thing new is the shapes and icons.
Update: And the same comment may also apply to video games. Comments, anyone?
It seems to me that the only way to get something different is to limit your game to having less strategic and tactical options. The game play is then about making the most of what you have, not about being the best you can be in a completely freeform environment.
That is pretty much where Eurogames fit in. Sure, there are way too many of those, too, and a whole lot of them feel like retreads of previous Eurogames, too. But there are a whole lot more categories of Eurogames, because Eurogame don't put the whole kit and caboodle into every game, just a few combinations thereof.
It's simple combinatorial theory, actually. If you choose 1 item out of 10, you have 10 choices. If you choose 2 items, you have 45 choices. 3 is 120, 4 is 210, 5 is 252, 6 is 210, 7 is 120, 8 is 45, and 9 is 10.
If there exist 10 tactical options in the entire world, every game with all 10 options is going to be exactly the same. There are only 10 games each of those with only 1 or 9 tactical options, and they will get old fast. Different and interesting games exist only in the 2 to 8 tactical option range.
Yehuda
"One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards."
Links
Gosh, so many links, I don't know where to start.
Let's start with the title quote, which is some sound strategic card playing advice from our American president, George W. Bush. This quote, as well as many other well-known sayings of his, is also an exemplary example of fine grammar.
The above was quoted on a recent Daily Show, which also provided a reference to Kuma War Games, a site that specializes in bringing out games about real world conflicts with as little time lag as possible. In one instance, they were even able to bring out a game about a conflict while it was still happening, so you could shoot bloody murder on your screen while real people were also dying at the same time. What fun!
For other news on war games, here's a large site I managed to overlook until now, The Wargamer.
Speaking of overlooking, I missed this lovely article back in July, about obsessive board gamers (Euro gamers, actually) flunking out of school.
A Frederiscksburg, VA newspaper waxes nostalgic about board and card games.
A Fort Wayne newspaper informs us about the Bible version of Apples to Apples and a slew of really bad Jewish board games,
Here we have some Gothic themed paper board games (scroll down).
Wikipedia has a game themed version called eGamia. Most of the entries are about video games, but they have some entries about board games. The entries could use some fleshing out.
Meanwhile, some Scottish children are being taught to play Chess in nursery school at the age of three.
Books
The Greatest Games of All Time
by Matthew Costello is a nice book and a great read, with stories about games from history. It's from 1991, so it's knowledge of video games ends with Nintendo and it's knowledge of board games ends with Sid Sackson. One whole chapter is devoted to Miniature Golf, which only after you think about it do you remember that, yes, it used to be a "craze" in America.
Most chapters also contain games that you can photocopy and play, including versions of classic games and some unique variants.
I asked Tom Vasel about his books with George Phillies (here and here). Tom says:
Gilad of Modiin will be hosting a games evening this Tuesday evening.
Nadine has sent me the files she used to create the Jewish themed version of Ra. If you wanted a copy, email me. The files are about 1MB altogether.
Yehuda
Gosh, so many links, I don't know where to start.
Let's start with the title quote, which is some sound strategic card playing advice from our American president, George W. Bush. This quote, as well as many other well-known sayings of his, is also an exemplary example of fine grammar.
The above was quoted on a recent Daily Show, which also provided a reference to Kuma War Games, a site that specializes in bringing out games about real world conflicts with as little time lag as possible. In one instance, they were even able to bring out a game about a conflict while it was still happening, so you could shoot bloody murder on your screen while real people were also dying at the same time. What fun!
For other news on war games, here's a large site I managed to overlook until now, The Wargamer.
Speaking of overlooking, I missed this lovely article back in July, about obsessive board gamers (Euro gamers, actually) flunking out of school.
A Frederiscksburg, VA newspaper waxes nostalgic about board and card games.
A Fort Wayne newspaper informs us about the Bible version of Apples to Apples and a slew of really bad Jewish board games,
Here we have some Gothic themed paper board games (scroll down).
Wikipedia has a game themed version called eGamia. Most of the entries are about video games, but they have some entries about board games. The entries could use some fleshing out.
Meanwhile, some Scottish children are being taught to play Chess in nursery school at the age of three.
Books
The Greatest Games of All Time
by Matthew Costello is a nice book and a great read, with stories about games from history. It's from 1991, so it's knowledge of video games ends with Nintendo and it's knowledge of board games ends with Sid Sackson. One whole chapter is devoted to Miniature Golf, which only after you think about it do you remember that, yes, it used to be a "craze" in America.Most chapters also contain games that you can photocopy and play, including versions of classic games and some unique variants.
I asked Tom Vasel about his books with George Phillies (here and here). Tom says:
One of the books contains about half of my interviews, the other contains 126 of my rules explanations from reviews. George comments in and around both books. Both books are aimed at video game designers, in an attempt to broaden their horizons by looking at designing in a different medium - board games.Local News
Gilad of Modiin will be hosting a games evening this Tuesday evening.
Nadine has sent me the files she used to create the Jewish themed version of Ra. If you wanted a copy, email me. The files are about 1MB altogether.
Yehuda
Friday, September 15, 2006
Ready for Cosmic Encounter
The four old Avalon Hill games I received together with Cosmic Encounter have now been passed on to an acquaintance and former JSGC attendee, Ephraim.
He also says that he may return this week or otherwise soon in order to re-try to play Origins of World War II with us. Last time he tried, the people didn't want to play because it was a) not a Eurogame, and b) had a picture of Hitler on the box. This time we have some more wargame friendly people around.
I was debating on whether to auction off my near mint copy of Cosmic Encounter, but absent any real knowledge of how much I can get for it (more than $200, but less than $500), I think I will simply open it and play it. I wouldn't pay $200 for a copy, but as long as I have it, I don't want to go through the bother of selling it.
Guests and kids for shabbat, so who knows what games we'll play?
Links:
If you're in Brooklyn, New York tomorrow (and you aren't a shabbat observing Jew or a Quaker, I suppose), you can join in a game of Urban Othello, using humans and cellphones for pieces. And next Saturday, if you're in Alexandria, Alabama, you can attend a garden party and play card and party games straight out of Jane Austen novels.
And remember the 1,500 newly available jobs in Parrsboro, Nova Scotia due to a board game company that decided to move offices there? It seems to be driving up real estate prices.
Foxmind now has a Hebrew site. (via anonymous tip)
Yehuda
P.S. What happened to BlogSpot for a half an hour today?
P.P.S. I found out that you can work on two blog posts at the same time, but don't try to post the both at the same time. It makes BlogSpot go into an infinite loop trying to re-index.
He also says that he may return this week or otherwise soon in order to re-try to play Origins of World War II with us. Last time he tried, the people didn't want to play because it was a) not a Eurogame, and b) had a picture of Hitler on the box. This time we have some more wargame friendly people around.
I was debating on whether to auction off my near mint copy of Cosmic Encounter, but absent any real knowledge of how much I can get for it (more than $200, but less than $500), I think I will simply open it and play it. I wouldn't pay $200 for a copy, but as long as I have it, I don't want to go through the bother of selling it.
Guests and kids for shabbat, so who knows what games we'll play?
Links:
If you're in Brooklyn, New York tomorrow (and you aren't a shabbat observing Jew or a Quaker, I suppose), you can join in a game of Urban Othello, using humans and cellphones for pieces. And next Saturday, if you're in Alexandria, Alabama, you can attend a garden party and play card and party games straight out of Jane Austen novels.
And remember the 1,500 newly available jobs in Parrsboro, Nova Scotia due to a board game company that decided to move offices there? It seems to be driving up real estate prices.
Foxmind now has a Hebrew site. (via anonymous tip)
Yehuda
P.S. What happened to BlogSpot for a half an hour today?
P.P.S. I found out that you can work on two blog posts at the same time, but don't try to post the both at the same time. It makes BlogSpot go into an infinite loop trying to re-index.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Computer Games, War Games, and me
Research continues ...
I am happy to admit that I my first examinations of modern computer gaming require me to divide it into categories.
The first category describes what I had been pejoratively ascribing to all computer gaming, namely the single player modern computer games. These are the games that require that you click faster, their main feature is violence, or they are yet another civilization-building resource-acquisition game. It covers all (to the best of my limited knowledge) single player RTS, RTT, TBS, TBT, civ, the Sims, combat games, and so on, which make up the bulk of most top hundred computer game lists, I think.
As I have said so many other times with board games that I don't like, far be it from me to try to convince people that they shouldn't like something. I simply want to classify these as puzzles rather then games. Each part of the game is solved, either through trial and error, figuring out the "right" solution, or training your reflexes to hit the right buttons at the right times. After each level is solved, that part of the game is essentially done. Eventually, the entire game is solved, because you have trained your way through it.
It may take a few months. But in the end, it's a puzzle, like Soduko. Violent and gory, but a puzzle. You may like this type of activity more than board games; you may like Sudoku more than board games. But even if they are called "strategy" games, they are not really in the same category of what I would consider strategy games. A game that can be solved in six months is not all that deep.
In the second category are strategy games with AI that simulate an opposing player, such as computer Chess and Scrabble. In fact, RTS and civ games may also weakly fall into this category. With chess and Scrabble computer games, there are games with very good AIs and deep strategy. I hear tell that this is less true for the complicated civ and shooting games. You simply learn what the AI does, and train yourself to work around it. The AI is too stupid to do any better.
The best of these games, such as Chess with a good AI, are certainly more on the lines of what I would consider true games as opposed to puzzles. Assuming that the player finds them fun, they offer some of the benefits that board games offer, such as honing strategic thought. What they miss is still pretty vast, however. Meeting face to face, or playing a board game against another player online, requires human to human cooperation, and all that that entails: etiquette, ethics, manners, and a constantly changing and unpredictable opponent.
The third classification of games are the multiplayer games, which are the online games that you play against one or more opponents. Assuming that you enjoy the games, these games offer as much in every way as any board games, as far as I can tell.
The violent ones, aside from their being visceral, are surely no different from war games, which I consider to be one of the highest forms of gaming. I don't particularly like war games myself, but I respect them immensely. Eurogames, for all the fun that they are, are at least as much, and often more, about playing against the board rather than your opponent. War games, even ones with thick rule books, generally use those rules to offer more options, rather than less. The games are usually wide open and offer many more valid strategic options than Eurogames.
Maybe that's why I don't like them as much. War games offer so many strategic options that I get the feeling (again, with limited experience) that two players playing almost any war game will tend to play "their" type of strategy. The play will look kind of signature from game to game. If you are outclassed in one war game, you will likely be outclassed in most other war games as well.
Eurogames, by limiting the strategic options from game to game, force you to try new things and learn entirely new ways of doing things from game to game. You may be good at one and bad at another.
Anyway, all this is conjecture, and I expect to be rebuked in the comments. Please do, and tell me why I'm wrong.
Anyway, online multiplayer gaming seems to me to be pretty much ideal, at least in theory. But they still have a few drawbacks in practice.
First of all, staring at a computer screen and sitting in a chair without a break is tiresome. Second, computers and connections are still pretty unreliable. Third, the actual games being played online are still pretty limited to killing games. Fourth, the games tend to be endless, instead of having a nice start and end, which encourages gaming obsession. Fifth, you need a computer, a network, and a game subscription. Sixth, it is hard to break, socialize, really meet new people, and so on. There is still a lot to be said about physical presence. Seventh, despite the opportunity to teach etiquette, ethics, and manners, most people are learning them online by them absence, rather than by their enforcement.
So hats off to the idea of multiplayer online gaming. I am interested to see what it does next. In the meantime, board games are in practice what multiplayer online gaming is in theory: intelligent, social, etiquette-rich, and fun.
Yehuda
I am happy to admit that I my first examinations of modern computer gaming require me to divide it into categories.
The first category describes what I had been pejoratively ascribing to all computer gaming, namely the single player modern computer games. These are the games that require that you click faster, their main feature is violence, or they are yet another civilization-building resource-acquisition game. It covers all (to the best of my limited knowledge) single player RTS, RTT, TBS, TBT, civ, the Sims, combat games, and so on, which make up the bulk of most top hundred computer game lists, I think.
As I have said so many other times with board games that I don't like, far be it from me to try to convince people that they shouldn't like something. I simply want to classify these as puzzles rather then games. Each part of the game is solved, either through trial and error, figuring out the "right" solution, or training your reflexes to hit the right buttons at the right times. After each level is solved, that part of the game is essentially done. Eventually, the entire game is solved, because you have trained your way through it.
It may take a few months. But in the end, it's a puzzle, like Soduko. Violent and gory, but a puzzle. You may like this type of activity more than board games; you may like Sudoku more than board games. But even if they are called "strategy" games, they are not really in the same category of what I would consider strategy games. A game that can be solved in six months is not all that deep.
In the second category are strategy games with AI that simulate an opposing player, such as computer Chess and Scrabble. In fact, RTS and civ games may also weakly fall into this category. With chess and Scrabble computer games, there are games with very good AIs and deep strategy. I hear tell that this is less true for the complicated civ and shooting games. You simply learn what the AI does, and train yourself to work around it. The AI is too stupid to do any better.
The best of these games, such as Chess with a good AI, are certainly more on the lines of what I would consider true games as opposed to puzzles. Assuming that the player finds them fun, they offer some of the benefits that board games offer, such as honing strategic thought. What they miss is still pretty vast, however. Meeting face to face, or playing a board game against another player online, requires human to human cooperation, and all that that entails: etiquette, ethics, manners, and a constantly changing and unpredictable opponent.
The third classification of games are the multiplayer games, which are the online games that you play against one or more opponents. Assuming that you enjoy the games, these games offer as much in every way as any board games, as far as I can tell.
The violent ones, aside from their being visceral, are surely no different from war games, which I consider to be one of the highest forms of gaming. I don't particularly like war games myself, but I respect them immensely. Eurogames, for all the fun that they are, are at least as much, and often more, about playing against the board rather than your opponent. War games, even ones with thick rule books, generally use those rules to offer more options, rather than less. The games are usually wide open and offer many more valid strategic options than Eurogames.
Maybe that's why I don't like them as much. War games offer so many strategic options that I get the feeling (again, with limited experience) that two players playing almost any war game will tend to play "their" type of strategy. The play will look kind of signature from game to game. If you are outclassed in one war game, you will likely be outclassed in most other war games as well.
Eurogames, by limiting the strategic options from game to game, force you to try new things and learn entirely new ways of doing things from game to game. You may be good at one and bad at another.
Anyway, all this is conjecture, and I expect to be rebuked in the comments. Please do, and tell me why I'm wrong.
Anyway, online multiplayer gaming seems to me to be pretty much ideal, at least in theory. But they still have a few drawbacks in practice.
First of all, staring at a computer screen and sitting in a chair without a break is tiresome. Second, computers and connections are still pretty unreliable. Third, the actual games being played online are still pretty limited to killing games. Fourth, the games tend to be endless, instead of having a nice start and end, which encourages gaming obsession. Fifth, you need a computer, a network, and a game subscription. Sixth, it is hard to break, socialize, really meet new people, and so on. There is still a lot to be said about physical presence. Seventh, despite the opportunity to teach etiquette, ethics, and manners, most people are learning them online by them absence, rather than by their enforcement.
So hats off to the idea of multiplayer online gaming. I am interested to see what it does next. In the meantime, board games are in practice what multiplayer online gaming is in theory: intelligent, social, etiquette-rich, and fun.
Yehuda
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Not ASL
My 16 year old son is the one who generally doesn't play games with me. Mostly, that's because I like Eurogames with no direct destruction of the other player's pieces. He plays third person computer strategy games. However, he often as not plays with the cheat codes that let him be invincible.Whatever strategy and tactics he could learn from the game, and there really are a lot, are lost. His prime enjoyment seems to be to simply blow things up because it is cool. And even more bizarrely he takes some sort of pride in having done so - "I'm so cool!"
He also has a lot of Warhammer stuff. He plays with his friends and wins. I tried to introduce him to ASL, but the person to whom I introduced him was obviously going to beat him more often than not, so he dropped out of that. Losing ruins his aura of invincibility.
He spends a lot of time drawing little armies in his notebooks. They all look like ninjas or Romans or marines, sometimes all three mixed together. Then he draws little maps on grid paper with buildings and rivers and so on. Using these, he will challenge his friends to a war game using simplified combat rules that he cobbled together from Warhammer.
The war games that he plays out have no strategy or sense, usually. It is "your guys have to kill my guys, and my guys have to kill your guys". There's no weather, no reinforcements, no sieges, no ambushes, no infiltration, no spying, no falsifying orders, no daytime or nighttime, no politics, and so on. I once challenged him to one of these games a few years ago.
I took a few of his drawings and studied his map. My first moves were out of range of his troops. I walked all the way around the back, walked up to the back door, blew it up, destroyed his HQ, and killed everyone else from under cover. It was a rout. I was supposed to walk up the front of the building, because that's what all of his friends do.
A year later he challenged me again. This time he was defending a dugout. Of course, as usual, there is no talk about weather, context, reasons, spying, disrupting communications, etc. "Your guys have to kill my guys."
This time I noted that there was a roof to his dugout. I destroyed and blocked the front door, blew a hole in his roof, and proceeded to slaughter his troops under full cover from above. "You were supposed to come in the front," says he. "Sorry," I said. "Better luck next time."
Last night he tried again. This time my forces were in position A, and there was no possibility of me going left or right, because every other direction was completely impassable. And time was of the essence, I had to go forward right now. And I had to go through this tunnel and out the other side into full view of his waiting troops. And I had no grenades. I asked questions for a half an hour, but there was no way out.
I was to march my men straight into his fire with no possibility of any changes, tactics, or strategy. He just wanted us to roll dice to see how many people died. Cause that's cool. I declined to play it out.
Yehuda
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Meanwhile, Out in the Field
Captain Martin squinted through the dusty binocular lenses, trying to ascertain the enemy's activities. Four weeks of hard traveling and he was ready to engage his enemy. Martin was a military man through and through. He didn't serve because it paid well, because it was honorable, or because he had nothing better to do.
Martin's grizzled gray hair dripped water beneath his battered gray helmet. He lowered the binoculars, and reflected. He knew why he served. He served because he loved the taste of combat. This was his element.
Around him his men were setting up, building fortifications, and scouting around for the resources needed to prepare for the coming conflict. He surveyed the proceedings with a grim eye.
"Sergeant Trent, front and center!" he bellowed.
Sergeant Trent appeared before the Captain and gave a crisp salute.
"Yes, sir!" yelled Trent.
Martin commanded, "The enemy is trying to dig something up. I want you to take a crack squad of four men and blow up their position."
"No, sir!" replied sergeant Trent.
"What the ... Sergeant, that was an order! What the Hell is wrong with you?"
"Sir, sorry, sir! We are not allowed to engage in direct confrontation with the enemy, sir!"
"Not allowed .. What? What the Hell are you talking about, Sergeant? Not allowed to confront the enemy? That's ridiculous!"
"Yes, sir! No direct confrontations, sir!"
"Well, what the Hell are we supposed to do, wave at them?" asked the Captain.
"Sir, we are digging our own water supplies, as is the enemy! If we work hard, we can dig more water supplies faster than the enemy. If we have more water, we win."
The Captain stared at his sergeant as if he was seeing his left foot for the first time. "What!? What do we need more water for? We've already got enough! And how is having more water than our enemy going to win this war!?"
"Sir, not just more water!" Trent replied. "Let's see," he looked up and began ticking off on his fingers, "We need more water, more dirt, and more wood, and then we trade the dirt and wood to get bricks! Or we can use the wood to get paper which we can use to write to HQ for another shovel. That will let us dig even more water. See?" he beamed happily.
"What!" barked the Captain. "What are you talking about? We have to kill the enemy, not drink water!"
"Well, sir," answered Trent, somewhat embarrassed, "you know that the better supplied army is going to win, isn't it? That's why we need to get more supplies than they do!" And he smiled.
"Trent, I don't give a goddamn hoot nor holler about water, shovels, or dirt! Just take some men and go blow up that ... what the Hell is this!?"
An enemy soldier walked past Martin and Trent with a shovel and began digging in the ground. The rest of his men were laughing and joking and carrying on with their work.
"What the Hell is going on here?!" He fumbled for his gun. Trent lay a hand down on his arm. The Captain went wide eyed, struggled for a moment, and then gave up, staring at the sergeant.
"Uh, uh, Captain, sir. No direct confrontation, remember? He's just digging here for water, like the rest of us."
"What the Hell is he doing here? What's he doing in our position? How did he get into our position?"
"Well, Captain, I learned that it is best not to think of any particular position as 'ours' or 'theirs', you know? What's important is that you are constantly looking around for the best position at any given moment."
The Captain was looking rather green. "How did he get in here? What's happening with our fortifications?"
He looked around and saw his fortifications halfway built. There was another enemy soldier standing on top of one of the walls building it up. Right next to him was one of his soldiers, just standing around doing nothing.
"What the Hell are you doing?" he yelled up at his soldier. "What's that guy doing here?"
"We built up a few pieces of the wall, and then this other guy climbed up and began building some more on top of what we built," yelled his soldier from on top of the wall.
Trent added, "Don't think of it as 'our' wall sir, like I told you before."
"Well why is our man just doing nothing?" the Captain asked in bewilderment.
Trent answered, "He needs to get to the other side of the enemy guy, but he can't pass him."
"Can't pass him?! The damn wall is five feet wide! Just go around!"
"Sorry, sir. Our man just has to wait for the other guy to move. He's not allowed to go around. Hmmm. He might be able to come down on this side of the wall, walk around to the other side, and then climb back up. That will probably take a few days, however."
Meanwhile, a contingent of enemy soldiers had walked up to his canteen. After some exchange, the soldiers handed the guy in the canteen a cordon of wood and in return received a barrel of water.
"What's going on? Why are we giving them water, sergeant? You told me we needed to have more water than them to win the war!"
"Oh, we have enough water. We have a good water supply. We're trading water with them for wood."
"But we're helping the enemy! You don't trade with the enemy!"
"Well," answered the sergeant slowly, "we are helping them, true, but we do need the wood, and both of us are gaining over that third enemy over on the other hill."
The Captain's grizzled face began to turned purple. He jumped up and down and began screaming "Sergeant!!! What the Hell is going on here!? I came here to fight a damn war, and I'm going to fight a damn war!!!"
Trent traced a circle in the ground with his foot. "Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to stop shouting at me. That could be considered confrontational, you know."
Huffing and puffing the Captain slowly regained his composure. He hung his head in defeat, staring at the ground with a small tear slowly running down his face. He wore the look of a beaten man.
"Sergeant," he choked. "Sergeant, I give up. I'm going to go back to my tent to turn on my computer and play war games. It seems to be the only way I'm going to be able to experience any combat around here."
"Sir, I'm afraid you can't do that, sir."
"I can't?" asked the Captain, wearily.
"No, sir."
"Well, what can I do?"
The Sergeant took out something front his breast pocket and fanned it out in front of the Captain.
"Pick a card."
Martin's grizzled gray hair dripped water beneath his battered gray helmet. He lowered the binoculars, and reflected. He knew why he served. He served because he loved the taste of combat. This was his element.
Around him his men were setting up, building fortifications, and scouting around for the resources needed to prepare for the coming conflict. He surveyed the proceedings with a grim eye.
"Sergeant Trent, front and center!" he bellowed.
Sergeant Trent appeared before the Captain and gave a crisp salute.
"Yes, sir!" yelled Trent.
Martin commanded, "The enemy is trying to dig something up. I want you to take a crack squad of four men and blow up their position."
"No, sir!" replied sergeant Trent.
"What the ... Sergeant, that was an order! What the Hell is wrong with you?"
"Sir, sorry, sir! We are not allowed to engage in direct confrontation with the enemy, sir!"
"Not allowed .. What? What the Hell are you talking about, Sergeant? Not allowed to confront the enemy? That's ridiculous!"
"Yes, sir! No direct confrontations, sir!"
"Well, what the Hell are we supposed to do, wave at them?" asked the Captain.
"Sir, we are digging our own water supplies, as is the enemy! If we work hard, we can dig more water supplies faster than the enemy. If we have more water, we win."
The Captain stared at his sergeant as if he was seeing his left foot for the first time. "What!? What do we need more water for? We've already got enough! And how is having more water than our enemy going to win this war!?"
"Sir, not just more water!" Trent replied. "Let's see," he looked up and began ticking off on his fingers, "We need more water, more dirt, and more wood, and then we trade the dirt and wood to get bricks! Or we can use the wood to get paper which we can use to write to HQ for another shovel. That will let us dig even more water. See?" he beamed happily.
"What!" barked the Captain. "What are you talking about? We have to kill the enemy, not drink water!"
"Well, sir," answered Trent, somewhat embarrassed, "you know that the better supplied army is going to win, isn't it? That's why we need to get more supplies than they do!" And he smiled.
"Trent, I don't give a goddamn hoot nor holler about water, shovels, or dirt! Just take some men and go blow up that ... what the Hell is this!?"
An enemy soldier walked past Martin and Trent with a shovel and began digging in the ground. The rest of his men were laughing and joking and carrying on with their work.
"What the Hell is going on here?!" He fumbled for his gun. Trent lay a hand down on his arm. The Captain went wide eyed, struggled for a moment, and then gave up, staring at the sergeant.
"Uh, uh, Captain, sir. No direct confrontation, remember? He's just digging here for water, like the rest of us."
"What the Hell is he doing here? What's he doing in our position? How did he get into our position?"
"Well, Captain, I learned that it is best not to think of any particular position as 'ours' or 'theirs', you know? What's important is that you are constantly looking around for the best position at any given moment."
The Captain was looking rather green. "How did he get in here? What's happening with our fortifications?"
He looked around and saw his fortifications halfway built. There was another enemy soldier standing on top of one of the walls building it up. Right next to him was one of his soldiers, just standing around doing nothing.
"What the Hell are you doing?" he yelled up at his soldier. "What's that guy doing here?"
"We built up a few pieces of the wall, and then this other guy climbed up and began building some more on top of what we built," yelled his soldier from on top of the wall.
Trent added, "Don't think of it as 'our' wall sir, like I told you before."
"Well why is our man just doing nothing?" the Captain asked in bewilderment.
Trent answered, "He needs to get to the other side of the enemy guy, but he can't pass him."
"Can't pass him?! The damn wall is five feet wide! Just go around!"
"Sorry, sir. Our man just has to wait for the other guy to move. He's not allowed to go around. Hmmm. He might be able to come down on this side of the wall, walk around to the other side, and then climb back up. That will probably take a few days, however."
Meanwhile, a contingent of enemy soldiers had walked up to his canteen. After some exchange, the soldiers handed the guy in the canteen a cordon of wood and in return received a barrel of water.
"What's going on? Why are we giving them water, sergeant? You told me we needed to have more water than them to win the war!"
"Oh, we have enough water. We have a good water supply. We're trading water with them for wood."
"But we're helping the enemy! You don't trade with the enemy!"
"Well," answered the sergeant slowly, "we are helping them, true, but we do need the wood, and both of us are gaining over that third enemy over on the other hill."
The Captain's grizzled face began to turned purple. He jumped up and down and began screaming "Sergeant!!! What the Hell is going on here!? I came here to fight a damn war, and I'm going to fight a damn war!!!"
Trent traced a circle in the ground with his foot. "Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to stop shouting at me. That could be considered confrontational, you know."
Huffing and puffing the Captain slowly regained his composure. He hung his head in defeat, staring at the ground with a small tear slowly running down his face. He wore the look of a beaten man.
"Sergeant," he choked. "Sergeant, I give up. I'm going to go back to my tent to turn on my computer and play war games. It seems to be the only way I'm going to be able to experience any combat around here."
"Sir, I'm afraid you can't do that, sir."
"I can't?" asked the Captain, wearily.
"No, sir."
"Well, what can I do?"
The Sergeant took out something front his breast pocket and fanned it out in front of the Captain.
"Pick a card."
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Minis
I have to admit that I have very little interest in minis. Nevertheless, I happen to have stumbled across two excellent mini sites that I thought I would pass on:
6 mm minis
and
MiniBlogster
Almost makes me wish I was obsessive about the things.
Yehuda
6 mm minis
and
MiniBlogster
Almost makes me wish I was obsessive about the things.
Yehuda
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Battle Cry as a Gateway Game
My son Eitan only used to play strategic computer games (although he would often used cheat codes, apparently playing it more for the destruction than the strategy). I bought Battle Cry for him, but aside from liking the pieces, he didn't seem to take to the game, wanting a lot more complicated rules.
Then I found him an ASL player (Ran), and he took to it, playing with our game group now once every few weeks when Ran is available. Interestingly, he is now starting to play with Battle Cry a bit more, with my other son Saarya, and introducing it to his friends. I think ASL awakened something in him, the desire to play with others, and not just with the computer. As he feels that ASL is too complicated for his friends, he is looking at BC in a new light, as something he and his friends can do together (most of the time he is with his friends they hang out wondering what to do).
Yehuda
Then I found him an ASL player (Ran), and he took to it, playing with our game group now once every few weeks when Ran is available. Interestingly, he is now starting to play with Battle Cry a bit more, with my other son Saarya, and introducing it to his friends. I think ASL awakened something in him, the desire to play with others, and not just with the computer. As he feels that ASL is too complicated for his friends, he is looking at BC in a new light, as something he and his friends can do together (most of the time he is with his friends they hang out wondering what to do).
Yehuda
Monday, May 23, 2005
When Children Play
I have two sons, Eitan and Saarya. Eitan is the rebel, and pretty much doesn't like to do anything, but he always loves violent but strategic computer games (Red Alert, Caeser, etc...).
Saarya is the consonant gamer who likes all types of games, like me. Our tastes differ, but no more than any other two gamers. He doesn't play Bridge or Magic, and doesn't like Puerto Rico too much, but he loves Goa, Prince of Florence, El Grande, etc... Saarya has been a regular at the game club.
Saarya and Eitan share a room, but almost never talk. Yes, they both play computer games, but they are otherwise very different. Saarya is the quiet one who does all of his homework at the beginning of the year. Eitan also does well in school, but does as little homework (and school) as possible.
Recently, I was contacted by an ASL player in Jerusalem who heard about the group, and even though ASL isn't my thing, I put him in touch with Eitan. Now the two of them come to the game group just to play ASL with each other, which is good.
I had bought Battle Cry to play with Eitan, before the ASL player came along, because I wanted to engage Eitan in some game, and I was hoping we could at least play this.
Last night we found that it is a good middle ground for Saarya and Eitan to meet. While I was helping my daughter with a project, both of them came to me bored, and I sent them to play Battle Cry with each other. You would think they would have played together at some other point in the last eight years they have been living together, but it has never happened.
So they played Battle Cry, and from what I hear, they had a close, enjoyable game. Saarya was up 5 to 4 flags at one point, but Eitan managed to get the last two he needed before the game ended. I hope they continue to play together, as this would be a good contact point for both of them. Good for Eitan to have something to do other than hang out in the center of town. Good for Saarya to have someone else to play with.
Yehuda
Saarya is the consonant gamer who likes all types of games, like me. Our tastes differ, but no more than any other two gamers. He doesn't play Bridge or Magic, and doesn't like Puerto Rico too much, but he loves Goa, Prince of Florence, El Grande, etc... Saarya has been a regular at the game club.
Saarya and Eitan share a room, but almost never talk. Yes, they both play computer games, but they are otherwise very different. Saarya is the quiet one who does all of his homework at the beginning of the year. Eitan also does well in school, but does as little homework (and school) as possible.
Recently, I was contacted by an ASL player in Jerusalem who heard about the group, and even though ASL isn't my thing, I put him in touch with Eitan. Now the two of them come to the game group just to play ASL with each other, which is good.
I had bought Battle Cry to play with Eitan, before the ASL player came along, because I wanted to engage Eitan in some game, and I was hoping we could at least play this.
Last night we found that it is a good middle ground for Saarya and Eitan to meet. While I was helping my daughter with a project, both of them came to me bored, and I sent them to play Battle Cry with each other. You would think they would have played together at some other point in the last eight years they have been living together, but it has never happened.
So they played Battle Cry, and from what I hear, they had a close, enjoyable game. Saarya was up 5 to 4 flags at one point, but Eitan managed to get the last two he needed before the game ended. I hope they continue to play together, as this would be a good contact point for both of them. Good for Eitan to have something to do other than hang out in the center of town. Good for Saarya to have someone else to play with.
Yehuda
Thursday, March 10, 2005
The Love Song of J Random Wargamer
Hey, chabibi!
Al tapilu bira al hamischak sheli.
Kaniti oto ba-chutz la-aretz,
V'hu oleh li yoter may
Ha-auto shelcha, ata shomeya?
Yalla.
LET us play then, you and I,
While the game board is spread out against the table
Like discarded candy wrappers in half-deserted streets;
Let us read through certain dog-eared sheets,
The muttering ramblings
Of restless rule-writers, drunk on Coke in late-night cubicles
And restaurants with half-eaten taco shells:
Lines that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question …
Oh, do not ask, “What the hell does that rule mean?”
Let's just play.
In the room Eurogamers come and go
Talking of Puerto Rico.
The yellow oil that runs upon the take-out food,
The yellow oil that pools like molten gold from the chili dogs
Licked its tongue into the corners of the saturated fries,
Lingered in pools that stand in paper bags,
Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from overcooked burgers,
Slipped by the greasy hands, made a sudden leap,
And seeing that it was my most expensive game,
Dripped once upon the board, and ruined it's resale value.
And indeed there will be time
For the inscrutable rules upon the many sheets,
In writing as soft and faint as your grip upon reality;
There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a strategy to meet the strategies that you meet;
There will be time to attack Normandy and retreat,
And time for all the plays and days of hands
That lift and drop a unit on your map;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before your opponent gives up in disgust and walks away.
In the room Eurogamers come and go
Talking of Puerto Rico.
And indeed there will be time
To wonder, “Do I attack?” and, “Do I attack?”
Time to turn back and hold position,
With a weak spot in the middle of my front line—
[They will say: “How his vanguard is growing thin!”]
My basic units, my mercenaries for hire,
My coffers overstreched, supply lines under fire—
[They will say: “But how his reinforcements are thin!”]
Do I dare
Disturb the stalemate?
In a minute there is time
For invasions and incursions which a skirmish will reverse.
For I have known them all already, known them all:—
Have known Avalon Hill, Eagle, and GDW,
I have measured out my life with chits and counters;
I have known the units dying with a dying fall
Beneath the fire from an overwhelming force.
So how should I presume?
And I have known the games already, known them all—
The games that fix you with a formulated play,
And when I am formulated, rolling on a whim,
When I am rolling ones for me, and sixes for him,
Then how should I begin
To give up all these games of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?
And I have known the armies already, known them all—
Armies Egyptian, Blue and Gray,
[But in the basement light, gray and grayer still!]
Is it uniforms from a certain period
That makes me so obsessed?
Model paints that lie along a table, or stuck to a newspaper.
And should I then presume?
And how should I begin?
. . . . .
Shall I say, I'll go home at dusk through narrow streets
Eat a balanced meal, and get some decent sleep?
Instead of watching dawn creep up, out of windows?…
I should have bought a twenty-two foot yacht
Sailing emerald waves of sunlit seas.
. . . . .
And in the afternoon, the evening, sleep so peacefully!
Smoothed by long fingers,
Asleep … tired … but it malingers,
Stretched on the table, here beside you and me.
Should I, after beer and cake and chips,
Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?
But though I have won and wept, won and resigned,
Though I have had my head [grown slightly bald] handed to me upon a platter,
I am no Eurogamer—and here’s no great matter;
I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,
And I have seen the game club owner hold my coat, and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid.
And would it have been worth it, after all,
After the soda, the Cheetoes, the coffee,
Among the styrafoam, among some kibbitzing about victory,
Would it have been worth while,
To have folded up the game with a smile,
To have stuffed all those chits into a ball
To roll it toward some overflowing dumpster,
To say: “I am Teuber and Knizia, come from Deutchland,
Come to tell you all, I shall tell you all”—
If one, settling a game box by his head,
Should say: “That is not what I play at all.
That is not it, at all.”
And would it have been worth it, after all,
Would it have been worth while,
After the counters and the model paints and the crinkled sheets,
After the rule books, after the polyhedral dice, after the pizza boxes trailing on the floor—
And this, and so much more?—
It is impossible to say just what I mean!
But as if a magic fireball threw some damage in patterns on my army:
Would it have been worth while
If one, settling a game box or throwing out a die,
And turning toward the window, should say:
“That is not it at all,
That is not what I play, at all.”
. . . . .
No! I am not Milo Bloom, nor was meant to be;
Am a Binkley, and that will do
To cut a deck of cards, start a hand or two,
Annoy my friends; no doubt, an easy play,
Referential, glad to be in a game,
Fanatic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of rule knowledge, but a bit obese;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.
I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my blue jeans rolled.
Shall I buy from overseas? Can I get this at the mall?
I shall wear dark flannel shirts, and walk the college hall.
I have heard the yacht girls singing, each to each.
I do not think that they will sing to me.
I have seen them riding waves in their ships
Combing their hair on the sunlit seas
When the wind blows the water white and black.
We have lingered in the basements of the cons
By hexboards detailed red and green
Till sleep has overcome us, and we dream.
(apologies to T. S. Eliot. From "The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock".)
Al tapilu bira al hamischak sheli.
Kaniti oto ba-chutz la-aretz,
V'hu oleh li yoter may
Ha-auto shelcha, ata shomeya?
Yalla.
LET us play then, you and I,
While the game board is spread out against the table
Like discarded candy wrappers in half-deserted streets;
Let us read through certain dog-eared sheets,
The muttering ramblings
Of restless rule-writers, drunk on Coke in late-night cubicles
And restaurants with half-eaten taco shells:
Lines that follow like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question …
Oh, do not ask, “What the hell does that rule mean?”
Let's just play.
In the room Eurogamers come and go
Talking of Puerto Rico.
The yellow oil that runs upon the take-out food,
The yellow oil that pools like molten gold from the chili dogs
Licked its tongue into the corners of the saturated fries,
Lingered in pools that stand in paper bags,
Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from overcooked burgers,
Slipped by the greasy hands, made a sudden leap,
And seeing that it was my most expensive game,
Dripped once upon the board, and ruined it's resale value.
And indeed there will be time
For the inscrutable rules upon the many sheets,
In writing as soft and faint as your grip upon reality;
There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a strategy to meet the strategies that you meet;
There will be time to attack Normandy and retreat,
And time for all the plays and days of hands
That lift and drop a unit on your map;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before your opponent gives up in disgust and walks away.
In the room Eurogamers come and go
Talking of Puerto Rico.
And indeed there will be time
To wonder, “Do I attack?” and, “Do I attack?”
Time to turn back and hold position,
With a weak spot in the middle of my front line—
[They will say: “How his vanguard is growing thin!”]
My basic units, my mercenaries for hire,
My coffers overstreched, supply lines under fire—
[They will say: “But how his reinforcements are thin!”]
Do I dare
Disturb the stalemate?
In a minute there is time
For invasions and incursions which a skirmish will reverse.
For I have known them all already, known them all:—
Have known Avalon Hill, Eagle, and GDW,
I have measured out my life with chits and counters;
I have known the units dying with a dying fall
Beneath the fire from an overwhelming force.
So how should I presume?
And I have known the games already, known them all—
The games that fix you with a formulated play,
And when I am formulated, rolling on a whim,
When I am rolling ones for me, and sixes for him,
Then how should I begin
To give up all these games of my days and ways?
And how should I presume?
And I have known the armies already, known them all—
Armies Egyptian, Blue and Gray,
[But in the basement light, gray and grayer still!]
Is it uniforms from a certain period
That makes me so obsessed?
Model paints that lie along a table, or stuck to a newspaper.
And should I then presume?
And how should I begin?
. . . . .
Shall I say, I'll go home at dusk through narrow streets
Eat a balanced meal, and get some decent sleep?
Instead of watching dawn creep up, out of windows?…
I should have bought a twenty-two foot yacht
Sailing emerald waves of sunlit seas.
. . . . .
And in the afternoon, the evening, sleep so peacefully!
Smoothed by long fingers,
Asleep … tired … but it malingers,
Stretched on the table, here beside you and me.
Should I, after beer and cake and chips,
Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?
But though I have won and wept, won and resigned,
Though I have had my head [grown slightly bald] handed to me upon a platter,
I am no Eurogamer—and here’s no great matter;
I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,
And I have seen the game club owner hold my coat, and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid.
And would it have been worth it, after all,
After the soda, the Cheetoes, the coffee,
Among the styrafoam, among some kibbitzing about victory,
Would it have been worth while,
To have folded up the game with a smile,
To have stuffed all those chits into a ball
To roll it toward some overflowing dumpster,
To say: “I am Teuber and Knizia, come from Deutchland,
Come to tell you all, I shall tell you all”—
If one, settling a game box by his head,
Should say: “That is not what I play at all.
That is not it, at all.”
And would it have been worth it, after all,
Would it have been worth while,
After the counters and the model paints and the crinkled sheets,
After the rule books, after the polyhedral dice, after the pizza boxes trailing on the floor—
And this, and so much more?—
It is impossible to say just what I mean!
But as if a magic fireball threw some damage in patterns on my army:
Would it have been worth while
If one, settling a game box or throwing out a die,
And turning toward the window, should say:
“That is not it at all,
That is not what I play, at all.”
. . . . .
No! I am not Milo Bloom, nor was meant to be;
Am a Binkley, and that will do
To cut a deck of cards, start a hand or two,
Annoy my friends; no doubt, an easy play,
Referential, glad to be in a game,
Fanatic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of rule knowledge, but a bit obese;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.
I grow old … I grow old …
I shall wear the bottoms of my blue jeans rolled.
Shall I buy from overseas? Can I get this at the mall?
I shall wear dark flannel shirts, and walk the college hall.
I have heard the yacht girls singing, each to each.
I do not think that they will sing to me.
I have seen them riding waves in their ships
Combing their hair on the sunlit seas
When the wind blows the water white and black.
We have lingered in the basements of the cons
By hexboards detailed red and green
Till sleep has overcome us, and we dream.
(apologies to T. S. Eliot. From "The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock".)
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Quick Post
A contingent of ASL players (4 including my son Eitan) will be gathering at my group next Wed. I guess this is not really the first crossover, as that happened when I got the head of the Jerusalem Go club to drop by. Anyway, if these guys come every week, I will have to re-evaluate my club as more than just a Euro game club ... which would be great!
Maybe I should re-advertise as welcoming Chess, Bridge, etc... players? Only, they will have to find a partner.
Yehuda
Maybe I should re-advertise as welcoming Chess, Bridge, etc... players? Only, they will have to find a partner.
Yehuda
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Weekend: Battle Cry
Battle Cry was bought to give me something to play with the other son, Eitan.
Battle Cry is a light wargame. No, it is not anything like a Euro-game, unlike, say, Wallenstein, which has Euro game elements mixed with wargaming elements. Nothing Euro about this one.
BC's biggest assets are threefold: a) beautiful components, including the miniature pieces, the board and the rulebook, which contains lots of history and explanation for each actual scenario being re-created (15 in all). b) Easily set up and customizable game board, with a big hex board, and lots of hex obstacle pieces, like trees and houses. After playing the real scenarios, you can make your own ahistorical ones, thereby giving a weaker player an advantage. c) quick playtime, running at about an hour I would guess for most scenarios.
One item that some may consider an asset I deliberately left out: simple and simplistic rules. The rules are simple, but, unfortunately, way too simple. The entire game rules is about 5 pages including large type and pictures. Basically:
1) Play a card from your hand indicating which 1, 2, or 3 divisions can attack from a particular flank (L, M, R).
2) Move the divisions.
3) Attack with the divisions. Roll a number of dice, one less for each hex distance, and one more if you have a general with you.
4) Pick a new card.
Some extras:
- Line of sight must be considered, but it is simplistic and not always sensible. For instance, an infantry division on a hill does not have line of sight over another division at the bottom of a hill.
- Being within an obstacle gives a reduction in the number of dice rolled by your opponent.
- The object of the game is always to eliminate 6 enemy divisions and/or generals.
The choices in how they simplified were just bad choices. Way too much was cut, leaving a rather dull game without many elements that would seem rather obvious, such as shooting first at something charging you, charging altogether, moving with cover, etc...
The other problem is that the game is not really good for Euro gamers, as it is a war game, plain and simple. But for war- gamers, it is so simplistic that it is lacking. Your opponent gets no attacks on you during your turn. You can run from obstacle to obstacle and attack with impunity. All sorts of simple maneuvers are impossible. And if you don't have the right card, you can't even attack someone right next to you. I understand the cards are to simulate a lack or coordination while ordering troops, but I really think each division should have, at least, a default order, such
as "shoot at enemy".
Luckily, many people on the Geek have added many new and important rules to help the game out - yes, adding some complexity, but entirely necessary. I haven't looked closely at them but they have to be an improvement.
Battle Cry is a light wargame. No, it is not anything like a Euro-game, unlike, say, Wallenstein, which has Euro game elements mixed with wargaming elements. Nothing Euro about this one.
BC's biggest assets are threefold: a) beautiful components, including the miniature pieces, the board and the rulebook, which contains lots of history and explanation for each actual scenario being re-created (15 in all). b) Easily set up and customizable game board, with a big hex board, and lots of hex obstacle pieces, like trees and houses. After playing the real scenarios, you can make your own ahistorical ones, thereby giving a weaker player an advantage. c) quick playtime, running at about an hour I would guess for most scenarios.
One item that some may consider an asset I deliberately left out: simple and simplistic rules. The rules are simple, but, unfortunately, way too simple. The entire game rules is about 5 pages including large type and pictures. Basically:
1) Play a card from your hand indicating which 1, 2, or 3 divisions can attack from a particular flank (L, M, R).
2) Move the divisions.
3) Attack with the divisions. Roll a number of dice, one less for each hex distance, and one more if you have a general with you.
4) Pick a new card.
Some extras:
- Line of sight must be considered, but it is simplistic and not always sensible. For instance, an infantry division on a hill does not have line of sight over another division at the bottom of a hill.
- Being within an obstacle gives a reduction in the number of dice rolled by your opponent.
- The object of the game is always to eliminate 6 enemy divisions and/or generals.
The choices in how they simplified were just bad choices. Way too much was cut, leaving a rather dull game without many elements that would seem rather obvious, such as shooting first at something charging you, charging altogether, moving with cover, etc...
The other problem is that the game is not really good for Euro gamers, as it is a war game, plain and simple. But for war- gamers, it is so simplistic that it is lacking. Your opponent gets no attacks on you during your turn. You can run from obstacle to obstacle and attack with impunity. All sorts of simple maneuvers are impossible. And if you don't have the right card, you can't even attack someone right next to you. I understand the cards are to simulate a lack or coordination while ordering troops, but I really think each division should have, at least, a default order, such
as "shoot at enemy".
Luckily, many people on the Geek have added many new and important rules to help the game out - yes, adding some complexity, but entirely necessary. I haven't looked closely at them but they have to be an improvement.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
ASL - The Game
First fallout from the new Hebrew board gaming contacts is Ran, a wargamer who was "surprised to see that there was a board gaming group in Jerusalem, and do any of us play ASL?"
Now, ASL, or Advanced Squad Leader, as some of you may know, is a lifestyle, not a game. Many people are content to play ASL only, for their entire life. Why? The thing is freakin' huge, man.
Ran brought over the game just so he could experience the joy of explaining it to me and my son - the one who doesn't play boardgames with us but is thrilled about the idea of wargames. His only experience so far is ... Warhammer.
Ran brought a duffel bag stuffed with boxes and boxes of counters, more boxes, and a large three ring binder with the original ASL rule set - about 2-300 pages of finely typed rules. Every weapon, vehicle, and soldier type of WWII is covered, each one has a different rate of fire, movement, penetration. There are dozens of different types of roads. Vehicles can be "overloaded", equipment can be poorly maintained, there are three or four separate fire chances each round of play, etc...
And this was about 1/4 to 1/3 of his ASL equipment, and he doesn't own a lot of it.
The actual game is not so bad, except having to remember the thousand different possible pluses and minuses (and several different types of these - such as "before pluses" and "after pluses") you might have to use to adjust your roll. Basically, each game consists of a realistic scenario on one of a dozen or more boards. Each player gets assigned their resources for this scenario - guns, vehicles, etc... and their objective. One guy's objective is usually to prevent the other guy from fulfilling theirs. All resources are little cardboard squares which stack on top of each other in a hex if they are part of a unit.
In some instances of combat, you roll one die for the unit; in others, you lift each square one by one, rolling for each. Other squares get placed on top of, or in the middle of, stacks, such as: already fired once, pinned, exhausted, routed, etc...
Small scenarios last a maximum of nine rounds - about 2 - 3 hours play for experienced players. Longer ones last several days.
By a startling coincidence, I had ordered Battle Cry a while ago, and yadda yadda yadda, it arrived tonight, an hour before Ran showed up. BC has four types of soldiers/guns, and a twenty page rulebook, of which fifteen are just describing scenarios - different ways to set up the board.
Ran left his rulebook for my son to read, since real playing in ASL can't really start until you've read the rulebook and watched someone else play a few times. For BC, I'm ready to roll. I wonder which one we'll pay first. I wonder which one my son will eventually gravitate towards playing more often.
Wargamers - is it all wargamers, or just ASL players who "only play the one game"? I know it's true of Bridge, Go, Scrabble, Chess, etc... players, as one can see in my own city.
Eurogamers play lots of games. Is that because the games themselves don't hold enough interest? Or is it because the "game" we really play is "Keep looking for better and more interesting things to do with mechanics"?
Yehuda
Now, ASL, or Advanced Squad Leader, as some of you may know, is a lifestyle, not a game. Many people are content to play ASL only, for their entire life. Why? The thing is freakin' huge, man.
Ran brought over the game just so he could experience the joy of explaining it to me and my son - the one who doesn't play boardgames with us but is thrilled about the idea of wargames. His only experience so far is ... Warhammer.
Ran brought a duffel bag stuffed with boxes and boxes of counters, more boxes, and a large three ring binder with the original ASL rule set - about 2-300 pages of finely typed rules. Every weapon, vehicle, and soldier type of WWII is covered, each one has a different rate of fire, movement, penetration. There are dozens of different types of roads. Vehicles can be "overloaded", equipment can be poorly maintained, there are three or four separate fire chances each round of play, etc...
And this was about 1/4 to 1/3 of his ASL equipment, and he doesn't own a lot of it.
The actual game is not so bad, except having to remember the thousand different possible pluses and minuses (and several different types of these - such as "before pluses" and "after pluses") you might have to use to adjust your roll. Basically, each game consists of a realistic scenario on one of a dozen or more boards. Each player gets assigned their resources for this scenario - guns, vehicles, etc... and their objective. One guy's objective is usually to prevent the other guy from fulfilling theirs. All resources are little cardboard squares which stack on top of each other in a hex if they are part of a unit.
In some instances of combat, you roll one die for the unit; in others, you lift each square one by one, rolling for each. Other squares get placed on top of, or in the middle of, stacks, such as: already fired once, pinned, exhausted, routed, etc...
Small scenarios last a maximum of nine rounds - about 2 - 3 hours play for experienced players. Longer ones last several days.
By a startling coincidence, I had ordered Battle Cry a while ago, and yadda yadda yadda, it arrived tonight, an hour before Ran showed up. BC has four types of soldiers/guns, and a twenty page rulebook, of which fifteen are just describing scenarios - different ways to set up the board.
Ran left his rulebook for my son to read, since real playing in ASL can't really start until you've read the rulebook and watched someone else play a few times. For BC, I'm ready to roll. I wonder which one we'll pay first. I wonder which one my son will eventually gravitate towards playing more often.
Wargamers - is it all wargamers, or just ASL players who "only play the one game"? I know it's true of Bridge, Go, Scrabble, Chess, etc... players, as one can see in my own city.
Eurogamers play lots of games. Is that because the games themselves don't hold enough interest? Or is it because the "game" we really play is "Keep looking for better and more interesting things to do with mechanics"?
Yehuda
Friday, July 02, 2004
Culture Clash
We just ran into two situations of culture clash in our group.
In the first incident, gamers with a wargame background played against gamers with a Eurogame background. A deal was made during the game between player A (Eurogamer) and player B (wargamer), and unilaterally broken on the last round of the game by player B, after all of player A's actions were over. This was our first playing of anything resembling a wargame (Wallenstein).
The treachery was a complete surprise to the Eurogamer. He had left his postion completely open to player B, because he had assumed that a deal made is as binding as any rules of the game in print, unless given advanced notice of intent. Player B assumed that deals were to be made and broken when to the advantage of the one who wants to break it. Who was right?
The answer is that neither one was right or wrong. Both styles of play can be acceptable, as long as prior understanding is given before cracking the game open. It is the gaming group that must determine if deals in any game not specifying must be kept or only held under a balance of power. At the very least it is the group who play the game that must agree to it, before the game is started.
I like to think of it as players and characters. The players are the people that come to play, the characters are the personas they take up when they play. The players must decide what rules the characters must abide. Once done, it is up to the characters to decide what to do within the game rules.
Only note: the answer that "the lesson was learned for future games" is not acceptable to me, because it implies that player B "knew" a rule of the game that player A did not, and exploited this, which is patently unfair.
The second clash involved the classic question of what to do on your last turn when you can't win. Player C, a wargamer, decided to inflict a loss on player D who had attacked him (in a normal game play) earlier in the game. This one is much harder to answer, because it depends on why he did it. (We were playing Taj Mahal)
If he did it because it was really the best move for him to maximize his position, it seems "right". If it was done because he wanted to "remain in character", it could also be "right". On the other hand, if he did it in order to dissuade player D from attacking him in future games, it seems "wrong". I think some combination of the second and third was closest to the truth, but most unconsiously; it is just what wargamers do. They attack people who attacked them. This was another surprise to the Eurogamers.
My hesitation is that among wargamers, I believe that there are some who play with a kind of quasi-roleplaying which extends toward any game. They think that it is normal and correct to "get back" at an offending player during the game, even if it does not maximize their points, and would maintain that it has nothing to do with metagaming issues.
I don't want to be in a position of telling a player that they need to choose or to not choose a certain decision in a game. I hope that they will not choose actions that offend people outside the game board if they are playing with non-wargamers. I also hope that other players do not take offense when another player makes a reasonable move against them. That is why the first attribute of a gamer must be good manners.
Yehuda
In the first incident, gamers with a wargame background played against gamers with a Eurogame background. A deal was made during the game between player A (Eurogamer) and player B (wargamer), and unilaterally broken on the last round of the game by player B, after all of player A's actions were over. This was our first playing of anything resembling a wargame (Wallenstein).
The treachery was a complete surprise to the Eurogamer. He had left his postion completely open to player B, because he had assumed that a deal made is as binding as any rules of the game in print, unless given advanced notice of intent. Player B assumed that deals were to be made and broken when to the advantage of the one who wants to break it. Who was right?
The answer is that neither one was right or wrong. Both styles of play can be acceptable, as long as prior understanding is given before cracking the game open. It is the gaming group that must determine if deals in any game not specifying must be kept or only held under a balance of power. At the very least it is the group who play the game that must agree to it, before the game is started.
I like to think of it as players and characters. The players are the people that come to play, the characters are the personas they take up when they play. The players must decide what rules the characters must abide. Once done, it is up to the characters to decide what to do within the game rules.
Only note: the answer that "the lesson was learned for future games" is not acceptable to me, because it implies that player B "knew" a rule of the game that player A did not, and exploited this, which is patently unfair.
The second clash involved the classic question of what to do on your last turn when you can't win. Player C, a wargamer, decided to inflict a loss on player D who had attacked him (in a normal game play) earlier in the game. This one is much harder to answer, because it depends on why he did it. (We were playing Taj Mahal)
If he did it because it was really the best move for him to maximize his position, it seems "right". If it was done because he wanted to "remain in character", it could also be "right". On the other hand, if he did it in order to dissuade player D from attacking him in future games, it seems "wrong". I think some combination of the second and third was closest to the truth, but most unconsiously; it is just what wargamers do. They attack people who attacked them. This was another surprise to the Eurogamers.
My hesitation is that among wargamers, I believe that there are some who play with a kind of quasi-roleplaying which extends toward any game. They think that it is normal and correct to "get back" at an offending player during the game, even if it does not maximize their points, and would maintain that it has nothing to do with metagaming issues.
I don't want to be in a position of telling a player that they need to choose or to not choose a certain decision in a game. I hope that they will not choose actions that offend people outside the game board if they are playing with non-wargamers. I also hope that other players do not take offense when another player makes a reasonable move against them. That is why the first attribute of a gamer must be good manners.
Yehuda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)