A$SFest, or, why Mark cries...

[Grimhelm]

Okay, here's the thing. I prefer games with strong visual/spatial components. What I mean by this is that I prefer games where I move pieces and can see the results or consequences of my actions in terms that have little to do with math.

Many of the games we play fall into two broad categories. One category is what I call the "Magic the Gathering" category, wherein combinations are discovered or studied prior to actually playing the game, and then chances of winning are based upon knowing these combinations. Puerto Rico is a game of this variety, as is Agricola and many others. The other variety is the math game.

The math game requires that one do math incessantly throughout the game. Powergrid, Acquire, Chicago Express, and St. Petersburg are all games of this kind.

I do not like being at the mercy of the game. I do not like being at the mercy of another player's ineptitude. I like to be able to blame myself for losing, not some game mechanic or foolish move of another player. In essence, I want to be in control of my own pieces and my own decisions.

This is why games like Wings of War do not bother me. Yes, there is chance, but I maneuvered and I am to blame if I get shot down. There is chance in all the war games we play, but those games have never displayed any of the above tendencies.

Am I better at these games? Yes. But that is not why I want to play them. I want to play them because I believe they are superior games.

Another huge problem about this unfortunate realization of mine is that these "superior" games are often only two player games. So, in essence, I never get to play them.

I have been talking about miniature warfare for some time now. I would be willing to shell out money for rules and minis if there are others who would play! What about it? Also, there are other multiplayer war games out there... Robotech, Warhammer, and so on. Thoughts?

I love game day, guys, and I love having everyone over. I lament the fact that I was such an ass yesterday, but it just highlighted for me all the things I hate about these games. Even Bob's unfortunate outing at Illuminati underlines a flaw in that game. When you're out, you're sitting for two hours.

What are your thoughts? Would anyone enjoy exploring more mini-based war gaming?

Mark

 

[InzeladunMaster]

Well, you know I agree.

One of the things I like about Wings of War is that it is one of those games that are spacial/tactical, yet supports more than one player. That, to me, is part of what makes it a superior game.

Chess, Wings of War, Othello, Stratego, Risk, that race game, even Clue are games I can visualize and, to a degree, even plan ahead successfully (some games I am better at this than others - I can't play Checkers worth a damn, for examples, and am an indifferent Chess player). I have more fun playing Risk with my family than with most of the strange games brought to Game Day.

I hate games where an early mistake dooms the player for the rest of the game, to the point where the player is now playing just to be playing. He can't win and knows he can't win. What I hate worse are games where the player doesn't really even make a mistake, but for some bit of obscure choices by others, he also cannot win.

I could try mini-based games, but money is tight with me. I do have a bunch of D&D minis, with the mini rules we can try. Each mini has a point value associated with it, and someone decides how many points are in an army, and you build your army that way - if a mini is worth more points, you have less minis in your army and vice versa.

 

[BobProbst]

Timely:

 

[Grimhelm]

Yes, well, I hope we can all laugh about it, but the fact remains, I am over these types of games. The reverse of these sorts of situations is like playing chess with a guy whose fate is certainly sealed, yet he plays on without resigning. I can't stand this either! The element of luck is no consolation, as the comic states. It is, in fact, an intolerable flaw to me. In essence, I am looking for a perfect game.

Bob and I have been talking about designing games now for years. I have tried with some modest success, sometimes creating games that are then mirrored in the market. The mechanics of Conflict of Heroes really looks like ideas I was putting forth in many ways. Still, I think there is room for a game in me.

I am going to try again. And, I will need help. As I get to work, I will pull out what I've got from time to time and ask you guys to give me some advice.

On another note... Perhaps with so many people coming on a regular basis, I can sit at another table with one other person really interested in playing war games... that is, until I design the ultimate multi-player war game.

 

[BobProbst]

until I design the ultimate multi-player war game.

I think Twilight Imperium is a smashing good Multiplayer wargame. We should play it again some time.

A Game of Thrones is quite awesome as well.

Of course, being in a rotton position in a multiplayer wargame is even worse than in a euro because they last so much longer.

I kind of think you just don't like not winning.

 

[Grimhelm]

"I kind of think you just don't like not winning."

Well, frankly I am a little offended by this statement. Are you serious? I mean, really, not winning is hardly the problem. How many games of St. Petersburg have we played? How many have I lost, but keep playing anyway? If anything, failure motivates me. However, I must, absolutely must, feel that I have some control over the final verdict. The game of Acquire is the most significant example of this that I can think of. I had absolutely no control over what happened after I was essentially dead and waiting for the game to end.

I have no problem with losing as long as I was out-played or beaten by my opponent, not because some random game mechanic engineered my downfall.

Just ask Vince how many games of Othello we have played, and how many of them I have won. The answer is nearly zero, yet defeat spurs me on because I feel like I could figure out the game and influence the outcome.

So, if you were serious, I am offended. If you weren't, then, well, not so funny. I am competitive, but I am certainly not afraid to lose.

Twilight Imperium had serious flaws. I don't remember Game of Thrones at all.

 

[BobProbst]

I suppose was being intentionally provocative. Just making an overly broad statement to challenge a position. I know you're no more averse to winning than I am

You're completely right that once you were out of the money in Acquire, your game was done. But in T&E, you essentially gave up in the last third of the game out of your perceived hopeless position -- yet you ended in a very close third. You failed to accurately assess your position. Had you applied yourself, you might have won. Honestly, every time I play T&E I'm quite certain that I'm losing but I've come to get comfortable with feeling like that and I plug away at filling out my short colors.

I still stand by the remark that your poor cash position in Acquire was partly because you failed to focus on chains that would merge early. You over committed your money to strong chains that would not get acquired in the short term and therefore you saw no returns until the end game. If it helps, I'd say it's analogous to a player in Settlers committing 2 roads to a contested intersection without the prospects to build a settlement there. You and I know that this is a huge gamble that often gets crushed but to a less experienced player, they don't even know what they did wrong. They just got "unlucky".

It's true that Vince also invested heavily in American but he got "lucky" as primary shareholder when Craig merged Worldwide and Continental. Even so, Vince fighting for primary holder of Continental was the absolutely right play because those 2 were going to merge faster than American -- whether Craig did it or someone else. Craig ended in a strong second place, mostly as a result of that decision (locking him as primary shareholder of a game finishing company) so I really can't fault him for it.

Where you may have seen random game mechanics and ineptitude, I saw strategy and reason (albeit with an imperfect random tile draw mechanism). You say you see losing as a challenge: I submit that there are real strategies present in Acquire and games like it -- challenge yourself to master them. Much like with Settlers

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I have to stand with Mark on that one. We have played a lot of Othello, but he virtually never wins. He learns, though, and never makes the same mistake twice. And he doesn't get upset at the game, or the rules. It does motivate him to try harder.

So, saying that he just doesn't like games he doesn't win isn't accurate at all.

 

[Grimhelm]

I am not saying that there are not strategies and tactics within these games. I am saying that chance can frak you over royally. In Acquire, I simply cannot agree with your analysis. There is absolutely no way of knowing what hotels will merge and if they will merge in your favor if you do not have the blocks to do it. It is impossible. And let's face it, I was a part of several early mergers--- which I was able to predict. I just happened to always be on the side that got no money.

As for Tigris and Euphrates, it was not me who "failed to assess the position". It is you who overestimated my position. I was not out of it by two blocks. I was out of it by nearly six blocks. Remember it is most of the least. If I had had seven blocks of one color, I would have to have had seven of all the colors. Right? Thus I was nowhere even close to winning, nor was I even in third place, technically. Now, I do fault my own choices in that game early on, but the result of my poor choices essentially meant I could not win. You don't catch up in that game, 9 times out of 10.

Do I like losing? No. But, I prefer to blame myself if it is possible. Your challenge to find the strategies assumes that I don't see the strategies. The fact of the matter is that I see most of the strategies. I just am not thrilled by some of them, and by the others I am positively tired to death of them, not to mention being sick of losing due to circumstances beyond my control. I have won at Acquire, Tigris and Euphrates, St. Petersburg, Powergrid, and more. It is not as if I am a complete incompetent.