Episode 184: Best-Case Scenario

[Rob Zacny]

Julian and Rob are wrapping up their vacation when they realize they should probably record a show. An underwhelming board game and their simmering frustration with long campaigns leads to a discussion of what they want from scenario design. They consider the tension between their desire a self-contained, quick-playing scenario and their resentment of puzzles and narrow solutions.

Listen

[chouzar]

Excellent discussion, I'm trying to make my mind of some key points (criticism and disagreements are welcome):

I think one way or another, every scenario or game system has a solution, with enough time to calculate every move we could reach a conclusion of "what is the best action to take" at a certain moment; even if other person is controlling a side, its posible to calculate posible moves or outcomes (quite hard with poor data). Still, time is a scarce resource and one just may take actions on what is available, ocasionally... the player with most experience, technique or capacity to process information will end with positive results.

Also during discussion I think Julian mentioned that if you remove luck from a game, in exchange you will need to offer the player lots of options. I agree, but this problem may be tackled by using a simple "game system" + "unpredictability". Maybe games like Stratego, Confusion or Engage could describe better what I'm trying to say, games where you really don't need to "compute" a lot of stuff other than "what will my opponent do next?". Still... I guess having lots of options will make a game more unpredictable, since a given player has more stuff to do.

Also, while discussing Tide of Iron Rob mentioned how some scenarios are just so focused on very specific objectives, and how... for a game that tries to depict an historical scenario... it makes the player forget about other important aspects of "combat". I recall a similar argument made by Lee Brimmicombe during the Bomber Command Episode, he explained that sometimes players are just too optimistic with their resources, a player may blatantly sacrifice armies in other to win the game. Thematically that may work for Advance Wars but in more "serious" wargames playing for points can make a game dull.

Loved the deviation of "What a wargame can be".

[thainatos]

I'd love to know the title of the book of battle maps that you referred to.

[Gormongous]

Yeah, same. Despite me outgrowing it in a strictly intellectual sense, my careworn copy of Salamander Books' Warfare in the Classical World by John Warry is still treasured by me to this day, not least for its Osprey illustrations and detailed maps. I'd almost rather Rob not mention the title of the battle atlas he was so impressed by, since I'm almost certain to buy it.

[Visible Cow]

The magazine Julian was trying to remember is probably Strategy & Tactics.

[robc]

I really wish game designers would make the first play through of a scenario fair so we don't have to play once to find out where the set pieces are and then try for real on subsequent attempts. I am exaggerating here, there haven been many scenarios that can be won on the first try - even in Panzer Korps. The magic for me in a scenario is when the player is rewarded for playing a smart game the first time without resorting to tedious replays. In my opinion any scenario play through after the first just isn't as much fun. The secrets have been revealed and the magic is lost. Scouting and the fog of war become an illusion - it just doesn't work out once we have peeked behind the curtain.

[PatientPylon]

This is so exciting! As someone who grew up playing Panzer General, and wasted uncounted hours on the game, my knowledge is finally coming in use!

Rob, here are some of the things you need to know in order to get a decisive victory on your first play through of most scenarios:

Scouting - You shouldn't be running into ambushes on the road. What you want to do is take the units at the back of your formation, and move them first (when possible). The units should end their move at the front of your formation, safely extending your LOS by another hex or two. In this way you can move your entire formation at its full speed, without exposing yourself to ambushes. This tactic won't supply 100% of your scouting needs, since often the move that is best for scouting won't be the move that is best for attacking. However, you can supplement this tactic with a scouting car, or by pulling one of your fighters off and using it to scout the road ahead of you. All together this should prevent ambushes and let you get an idea of the forces laying in wait at the next city.

Unit Composition: You want a force of fighters, tac bombers, infantry, tanks, and artillery, in approximately equal numbers. Buy more fighters and tanks when you can afford it, and when you can't fill up on the relatively cheap infantry. Leaven with one or two scout cars. Avoid the strategic bombers, naval bombers, and paratroopers, also avoid the anti-air and anti-tank guns.

Scenario design: I believe the enemy units lying in wait for you aren't generally hardcoded into the scenario. Rather, it looks like the AI has a pool of points to spend (just like you), and will use that pool to buy units where it sees a threat. For instance, in one play through you might see a very strong initial line of defense. However, once you destroy that line the rest of the map will be essentially clear of opposition. Playing through the scenario a second time, you can set it up so that you sneak fast cars or paratroopers adjacent to the first line of enemy cities. If you do this before the AI realizes that the cities are threatened, the AI won't be able to purchase units there and the first line of cities will be relatively weak. However, the missing units will show up at the next line of cities, unless you can repeat the trick again. There are some units that are always in the same place in a scenario, but it looks like the majority of enemy ground forces are placed dynamically. Air units and naval units I think are mostly hardcoded.

Scenarios as Puzzles: Because of the above, I think of most of the scenarios as tactical challenges rather than puzzles. The one exception might be Norway. In that scenario there are a few northern landing spots where you should be able land a few elite units to quickly take the difficult to reach northern cities. However, these landings are actually deathtraps, since the entire British navy will show up there the turn after you land. What you have to realize in this scenario though is that you need to consider the internal political element as well as the external military struggle. After your early string of victories, the Kreigsmarine admirals are feeling threatened by your rising star, hence the trap in the north. In this scenario and the later ones, you have to be very conservative on the landings in order to avoid the pitfalls of inter-service rivalry.

Ok, hope this helps! These same tactics seem to work equally well in Panzer General, Panzer Corp, or any of the other X General games.

[Doc Aquatic]

Does anyone know what episode featured Steve Baker's civil war scenario mentioned later in the podcast? It sounds absolutely fascinating and I'd like to hear more about it, but a quick scan of the episode titles in iTunes didn't show anything that was particularly clear.

[riadsala]

Did Rob really complain that he didn't like deterministic games due to their predictability? And the suggested solution was to make rulesets more complex?

Really?

Surely chess and go suggest that that view is nonsense? Both are completely deterministic, with incredibly elegant and simple rule-sets (especially in the case of go). And neither are very predictable... if you can read more than three moves ahead, then you can consider yourself a pretty strong player!

[chouzar]

Did Rob really complain that he didn't like deterministic games due to their predictability? And the suggested solution was to make rulesets more complex?

Really?

Surely chess and go suggest that that view is nonsense? Both are completely deterministic, with incredibly elegant and simple rule-sets (especially in the case of go). And neither are very predictable... if you can read more than three moves ahead, then you can consider yourself a pretty strong player!

From what I understood, it was having a "more complex game" not necesarilly "complex rulesets", chess and go usually have tons of options and a certain state of the game can be very complex (deep).

[riadsala]

From what I understood, it was having a "more complex game" not necesarilly "complex rulesets", chess and go usually have tons of options and a certain state of the game can be very complex (deep).

Which is fine. But didn't they then go on to use the complexity of ASL as an example? (I maybe be confused I was listening to the podcast while flying home from my holiday).

I do worry that the distinction between complex/deep games and complicated/fiddly rulesets is often confused though. There's a class of strategy gamer out there that believes that the two are the same. (ie, my impression of EUIII type games). A boardgame example would be the new-ish Civilization board game. I played it a while ago, and while i enjoyed it, I'm not sure the added complexity of the rules actually made it a better game, when compared to something like Puerto Rico. Both games have a similar feel, but PR doesn't take 6hours+ to play...

[chouzar]

Which is fine. But didn't they then go on to use the complexity of ASL as an example? (I maybe be confused I was listening to the podcast while flying home from my holiday).

Yes I think you're right, they used ASL as the example. I have a really vague idea of how an ASL session unfolds, so I don't know if all those rules really make the game more "deep" or the appeal of ASL is just learning new rules "to see what happens in a certain scenario" and see "who remembers to apply special and obscure rules". Still, a game with tons of rules may generate more "game states" than a simpler one, one example maybe Die Macher? (Haven't really played it, but it seems to be a deterministic game with a lot of variables to handle at once).

I do worry that the distinction between complex/deep games and complicated/fiddly rulesets is often confused though. There's a class of strategy gamer out there that believes that the two are the same. (ie, my impression of EUIII type games).

During my early days with strategy games I used to perceive "complex games" as "strategic", there was a certain appeal at learning all the interactions in a system, I remember playing "Empire: Total War" amazed at the "strategic map" because of all the stuff that was happening, I wanted to know how economy worked and balanced out, until I discovered that basically "the more stuff you build, the more gold you get", and the economic layer of the strategic campaing ended up being quite dull for me (the learning process was fun, but the automating option is there for a reason).

Have never been too interested in EUIII games, there seems too much micro to do, too much roles to fulfill. But, from what I understand it is an "open game", you start with a nation and you set all your objectives, maybe it is possible to take a certain rol in the game? Politics, Economy, War... and let the AI do the rest.

A boardgame example would be the new-ish Civilization board game. I played it a while ago, and while i enjoyed it, I'm not sure the added complexity of the rules actually made it a better game, when compared to something like Puerto Rico. Both games have a similar feel, but PR doesn't take 6hours+ to play...

Too bad about the new-ish Civilization boardgame, a friend has it on the shelve because "its too fidly, too heavy of a game".