|
mogami -> RE: Houston, we have a problem (7/12/2006 2:58:05 PM)
|
Hi, It is not game design. It is players being resourceful in finding how to maximize play.
In the old (cira 1979) SPI board game war in the Pacific it was found the Japanese could bypass Singapore and reach India before the end of Dec 1941 !!!! (One of the very first house rules was to decrese movement phases to 1/4 of design) In the SSI computer game India could be had by any Japanese player who decided to take it. The house rule was then no movement in CBI from Nov to April (all the major battles there were fought from May to Oct)
I would like the people who blame design for exploits to instead of posting their comments to simply post a design document that a future programmer can use that eliminates exploits while still allowing players who don't use exploits to have a plausable war. No exploit in WITP is new, all of them exist in almost every game ever designed on the subject. Map edge exploits exist in everygame that uses a map that is not the entire planet. (map edge exploits exist in naval games and space games as well as games on ground combat. )
Karachi in WITP does not represent a single city but rather all the allied bases off map that connect to India. The Japanese player is able to mount an attack towards a single hex and cut off access to the map from mulitple locations but protests when these resources are employed in it's defense. Karachi can be taken (it has in other games) But since before the games release players were warned that this strategy was against design. Now when it is employed the design gets the blame.
If you try to fly a automobile off a cliff and fail you don't blame the designers for the bad flight performance
If you make a "Draino Milkshake" you can't blame the manufactor for the results. (It has a warning label)
Why is it players go directly against stated design intent in WITP and then post complaints about the results?
Why are some exploits used but others condemed? (Nemo exploited the design as part of his master plan but now worries over the other player doing the same) while Nemo writes a fine AAR there is nothing in his plan that is new.
Do not confuse his "lunacy" with the 3 games I began with that label. My lunacy games were to test the impact of Japanese use of Kwantung units outside Manchuria/Korea nothing else. I used my normal game style and in fact while the 3 Allied players accepted the game only Nomad allowed the Japanese attack against the Soviets that these games were intended to test. The other two players made sure that Japan was unable to transfer CEA units to make the attack possible. (in effect they never were lunacy games)
Nemo's plan most resembles the old "Hirohito" plan that was tested by another.
I don't pretend to be any sort of "god of Operations" but I am much more interested in AAR from games where the Japanese player attempts to win without resorting to any plan that has known exploits as the major operational element.
Straight up: A valid Japanese plan for conduct of war should have as it's main component the defeat of the USN in the Central/South/North Pacific and the succesful establishment of a defensive line that prevent the use of Allied heavy bombers against targets inside the Japanese Home Islands. Not very exciting but this type of Japanese conduct produces the best games of WITP.
No design can force players into limiting their play to this type of game. Players can explore or experimant to their hearts content but they are warned the results are not claimed to reflect what some call historical. exploit games can be fun and exciting but when the game fails to provide the desired results it is not honest to lay it on the design. If Karachi had been intended to be a possible target for Japanese land assault the map would have been expanded (but then some other base would become a target however Karachi would not be so easy since other bases and forces could be employed in it's defense)
Japanese players who would enter Karachi should just consider the possible Allied exploits as nothing more then these other bases and forces being employed in it's defense. (Japan does not just need to defeat Karachi but the entire Allied war potentional in the off map area. She is able to confront these forces in a single location making their defeat easier in the long run then in a game where they were actually on map locations)
From "The need for House Rules WITP (SPI 1979)"
Need for House rules
- they correct loopholes in the rules which reward strongly
ahistorical behavior by players
- they are SHORT
- there is no increase in playing time or recordkeeping
- been tested using multiple scenarios and partial campaign games
(although the two campaign games we started after most of the
changes were introduced have not progressed into the second half of
the war yet)
- they are cautious, i.e., whenever there was a discussion whether
the alteration was sufficient, we chose to err on the side closer to
the original design.
- they are significant, i.e., they are not mere chrome, but exercise a
direct influence on the strategic planning of the players (with the
naval combat rule being the exception).
|
|
|
|
