Dear List
I am going out on a fairly thick limb here… actually probably more leaning against the trunk as far as riskiness goes… but the recent campaign has been something of an education to me.
I find that games tells you a LOT about human nature, and a LOT about human interaction.
I need not get into the forensics of this as you are probably all sick of hearing about it by now, but In the Imaginations Campaign I am seeing that people assume a lot is "understood" and a lot is either lost OR gained in imprecision.. What people MEAN and INTEND is very much different than what they do, and that decisions are made, quite often without due consideration. Now I admit that often I ask them for intentions right after a monstrously fun game and a big dinner liberally washed down with wine, but still, what is interesting is how things shift.
I sat there at the end of dinner watching Mike recruit three other guys for his campaign against Ikea, a non player country. I then watched all of them fumble it away, two of them through simple imprecision, and one of them through general prevarication and even Mike himself through overplanning.
What Mike intended was to have
one player attack Ikea with an army and a Brigade. Assume Ikea responded in kind with an army and a brigade.
another player attack Ikea with an army and a Brigade, Assume Ikea responded with two brigades, thus giving that player a much better chance on the field.
a third player attack Ikea with an army and a Brigade, Assume Ikea fobbed him off with his fortress, thus negating the attack.
a fourth player attack Ikea with an army and a Brigade, thus meaning Ikea responded with his remaining brigade, thus giving that player an overwhelming advantage on the table top and the possibility of wracking up big victory points.
In the event, Mike and Sean did attack with an army and a brigade, while Norm attacked with only an army. Pete didn't attack at all, but in fact offered to use his forces as "mercenaries" to any side that needed them.
Now within the above, as the umpire stands in for the missing player, I get to chose who faces which forces. I MUST respond as a real interested player does. I cannot NOT respond if I have resources to respond with, and so I shall.
I PROBABLY will take Mike's attack up equal, that is face him with an army and a brigade. I probably will use the fortress against Sean, and face Norm's Army with two brigades which will give me the best bet, a battle at only a medium disadvantage. In fact, I probably will use the Barbarian Allies and Native allies against Norm, which will allow me to fight a mobile delaying harassing action. The results of this are that Mike probably will get no Victory points, Sean will definiately get one, and have to wait to get revivals of the ones he used. and Norm probably can be held to small gains.
On the other hand, if I wanted to be really nasty I could use the fortress against Mike, thus cutting out any chance of his loss. Note that the order of resolution and the difference in battle determines who gets the Victory points. Assume player 1 (army and brigade against army and brigade) gets 1 vp. Assume Army against Army gets 1 vp, and army against two brigades gets 3. The commanders on the scene, that is whose forces commanded gets the Victory points This could mean that as umpire I decide who's attack gets what response, and this adds to a big defensive benefit to the non player country. (Serves you right for attacking a stuffed toy!)>
But what was really interesting is how now, on only the third passage of intentions, different players are already showing different traits, trends, and tendencies. I am very pleased with this, as I think it allows players to posit their personalities far more than when they are straightjacketed into ascribed victory goals.
Otto
