|
Crackaces -> RE: 2x3+ 007 (8/12/2019 4:37:05 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Telemecus
quote:
Soviet South Commander
Any point continuing guys?! I can do my turn but I don't really see the point. Good learning experience. Well played on their part in the centre.
I'm not very motivated to continue as you can hear.
I'll do my turn tonight but if you you also think we should fly the white flag, then let me know.
quote:
Soviet South Commander-
I thought about it more and am not interested to continue. "South Commander deserts"
Sorry to let you down. Thanks for the learning experience and all the best.
War in the East is a big beast of a game and it is perhaps always an unfair ask for someone to continue for long after in something that should be fun when they have lost heart. At least with a team game it can continue with replacements unlike a solo game that would now end - and former players continue to be friends and enthusiasts.
But the point here is not to talk about team changes but why the sudden change of heart from earlier in the game when they felt it was simply bad Axis play. I think the alternative opening for the south was the reason. By not going by the playbook and doing the unexpected it left the Soviet side dazed and confused. Without a yardstick to measure by, different play was confused for bad play. The alternative opening for the south was not a success in what it planned to do, but it was a success as a psyops by just being something else. The Soviet side then over committed to a defence close to the border and lost more than it might have done running from a more conventional strategy. Ultimately it was between how well two south commanders could adapt to the unknown.
The 3rd new member will be joining the Soviet team this turn. The Axis team felt with all the team changes it made sense to offer them the chance to make changes from the previous turn and carry on from there. Seeing what was going to happen we did not want to disappoint new players to the game. However the Soviet team were insistent that they should carry on for good or bad as normal. So I salute them!
With players coming and going of various abilities you expect any experience differences to even out over time. But I have noticed the advantages one side can get from a stable team. Players from turn 1 who ranked themselves as inexperienced were now looking back from turn 7 to what they used to do with embarrassment of how noobish they used to be. Our opponents do not now have the advantages of a stable team that had spent turns learning the game together and how to play with each other.
I think this behavior as a strategy might fall under "self-confirming equilibrium". One player, who lacks a understanding of another players strategy, continues their strategy based on the mistaken believe that the opponent's strategy is inferior. Then a realization occurs followed by resignation. A strong team continues to exchange information and alter their strategy. This is the power of team play vs. individual play of the game.
The beauty of these forums is that a group of players will be exposed to numerous strategies along with outcomes. Eventually an equilibrium will be reached with all strategies considered. I propose to you that is at that point that game balance can be explored. That is considering any number of strategies and adjustments -- the outcome is always known.
|
|
|
|
