Re: Does this animal exist?

From: bmclain1@khan2.dandelions.com

Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Greg Benage is miffed.  Here's why...

We were discussing the combat system of World War IV.  I said:

>I like a combat system where the only surprise is what the other guy
>does.  I like being able to figure exactly how a battle will turn out --
>provided, of course, my opponent does what I expect him to do.

>You'll admit that the WWIV combat system is nothing like this.

Then Greg said:

>Yes, it is true that WWIV, and every other good wargame I've played, >from Third Reich to Panzer General, are nothing like this.  T=
he combat >system of every good wargame has to involve some element of chance, >though ideally, the vulnerability of your position t=
o chance can be >controlled. Otherwise, your military operation is absolutely nothing >more than an exercise in number-crunching.  I=
f that were the case with >WWIV, the game's "anticipation factor" would drop to the point where I, >at least, would not be playing i=
t.  From your comments in your review >and your response to John's response, I understood that you were quite >familiar with a numbe=
r of wargames.  As such, I'm surprised that you >prefer kindergarten-level "combat mechanics" along the lines of >rock-paper-scissor=
s or ME-PBM (though the latter, of course, manages to >make its simplistic combat system dizzyingly complicated...simplistic >and el=
egant is good, simplistic and complicated is not).

You miss the point, Greg.  Every good wargame *does* require an element
of chance.  I think the element of chance should be the other fellow's
strategy and tactics.  You think it should be a random combat system.

Here's an example.

I know you've got tanks in Bolivia.  You can move those tanks to three
different locations.  I know the exact offense and defense rating of your
tanks, and I know how those ratings will be modified by the terrain of
the three locations where you can move them.  So where will you move
them?  Where should I concentrate my forces?  Maybe I can put enough
firepower in two locations, but not enough in the third.  My anticipation
is high because I don't know where you're going to move the tanks.

Your actions become the random element.  There's no need to make combat
resolution random as well.

>My biggest gripe isn't even your preferences along these lines, though I
>think they're ill-considered.  It's that you took it upon yourself to >tag WWIV's combat system as "mysterious" or "obscure" or som=
esuch, >simply because you couldn't determine with 100% accuracy the outcome of >each battle.  Those comments, frankly, add up to an=
 irresponsible >review.  I suppose I'm a bit miffed because, as an avid player, I expect >I'm seeing fewer new players give my favor=
ite game a try because of this >review. By default, a lot of readers will consider a Flagship >contributor an "authority" on the gam=
e's he/she reviews.  I feel like >you haven't lived up to this responsibility.

Now you get really goofy.

I played ten turns of World War IV.  Ten turns is long enough for me to
form an opinion.  My opinion is that I don't like the combat system.  My
reasons for not liking the combat system aren't "simply because [I]
couldn't determine with 100% accuracy the outcome of each battle."  I've
made clear why I don't like the combat system.  Maybe other people like
it.  Good for them!  But they didn't write a review.

A review is irresponsible only when it's inaccurate.  You claim that my
remarks were "ill-considered".  In other words, you don't agree with me.
 It's too bad that you consider irresponsible anyone who doesn't agree
with you.

I'm not an authority on World War IV.  I never claimed to be an
authority.  I gave my opinion in a review.  I suppose others may take my
opinion as gospel and not play the game, although I hope they read the
rules and make up their own minds instead.

I forgot to make one criticism about World War IV in my review.  The game
favors established players like yourself who form alliances long before
the first turn ever processes.  I heard from several newcomers who became
quite bitter when their positions were overwhelmed by alliances of
veteran players.  This is an inevitable consequence of any multi-player
game.  In World War IV, however, it's especially bad because newcomers
can't figure out the combat system; veterans are far better able to
predict results and wage effective campaigns.  Maybe there's a reason
*besides* my review why fewer people are joining World War IV...

And just in case anyone thinks my comments were motivated by failure in
the game...

I controlled the entire nation of Indonesia, and I had holdings as far
apart as Sri Lanka, a southern province of Japan, and many provinces in
Australia.  I had several local allies.  I had no truly formidable
enemies.  I was being courted by a major alliance of veterans (the
North American group, of which I believe you were part). I stopped
playing the game not because I was unsuccessful but because it just
wasn't fun.

Thanks for telling me what you think, Greg.  I'm glad people are reading
my column in Flagship, and I'm glad it's having an effect.

Bob

References

Re: Does this animal exist?
bmclain1@khan2.dandelions.com
Sun, 03 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Does this animal exist?
gbenage@aol.com (G Benage)
Mon, 04 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Does this animal exist?
bmclain1@khan2.dandelions.com
Sun, 03 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Does this animal exist?
gbenage@aol.com (G Benage)
Mon, 04 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0000