"Have you said this to an opponent?" Topic

A variation on this thread:

TMP link

This one is the opposite; I didn't want to hijack the previous thread, so I thought I'd start another, pretty much for the sake of it.

I remember several occasions where I saw a player (who shall remain nameless – 'twas always he) who would say to an opponent (almost always the same one) something like "Are you sure you want to do that?" when said opponent was doing something intelligent and probably game-winning. The opponent would always then rethink and do something entirely different, thus losing the game. He never seemed to catch on.

I guess this falls into the 'psy-ops' category – does anyone else have a similar experience?

I dont but I know a chap who does…

I have told less experienced gamers, "You do not want to do that because, . . ."

In simultaneous movement, map-marked games I have a variant, "Let's pretend that didn't happen and fix your move."

With an experienced opponent? Not so much. My psych-out is to tell someone in that category their best possible move. No one, once told, ever does it!

Rick

Unless player-to-player communication is part of the rules, this is a meta-game function. Strictly, psy-ops would have to be part of the ruleset.

Yes, I do this and have had it done to me. Only with players who know each other well enough to respond, "Hey! You're trying to psych me out … or maybe you're trying to make me think you're trying to psych me out … or maybe you're trying to psych me out about psyching me out about …"

I think it is inappropriate in other settings to work the meta-game.

I know a guy…

Only with guys I know well, who know well that it's just kibitz. Don't think I seen it done intentionally to misguide an opponent, unless it was really well done!

Not unless I was joking as in " Do you really want to charge my flanked militia that I have stupidly exposed with your elite cavalry and thus rolling up the entire flank and crushing me like a cheap tin can?"

Yeah, we had a guy in our club who allowed himself to be beaten before the game even started. He'd set up his side, and then his opponent would start questioning his deployment and how he should have done it differently. Mentally he began doubting himself and you could tell he was already lost. If it was a multi player game, his partner new this was coming and would have to put serious, serious effort into talking him back up, and knowing, at some point, he'd probably have to come to the rescue. Psyops in wargaming, and the absolute best example of why you don't need to downgrade your metal generals; players will make their own mistakes.

I've often used "If you do that you are giving me the option of…" to warn them or even tell them the likely consequences. But only for people learning the game. Veterans should know better.

Only against Winston…

Eric

When I am refereeing a game, which is pretty often, I absolutely will not allow player communication unless their command figures are in contact, otherwise they must write a note and send it to the other player. New players are allowed to ask for hints and tips and ideas however. One of the most entertaining battles I was involved in was where I was refereeing a game that was totally blind. The map/gametable was set up the two sides chosen and the players not allowed to see the map/gametable, they then told me how the troops were deployed and their movement order then waited until their forces made actual contact with the enemy, the player then was brought up to the table. One player won the game by marching his forces into the enemies rear area capturing their headquarters and supply area but never got to come upstairs to the table because the player who was supposed to be in a blocking position disobeyed his orders and marched to the sound of the guns getting his forces mauled and leaving a huge hole in his side's lines that the one player duly marched through to the rear winning the battle. He could have marched to the sound of the guns too, but his orders were to advance up the road to the enemies rear and he followed them winning the game.

Usually? No. I am so concentrated in my own game that I don't care what my opponent is doing beyond the benefits/hurts me process of analysis.

Of course, I behave different when teaching someone.

Thanks for the replies. I definitely agree with Raylev 3, especially in multi-player games: somebody almost always does something daft anyway! Who needs fog of war when you have players like ours? It all adds to the fun, I suppose.

Doing what the OP suggests would seem to be kind of annoying.

If someone new to a specific game is doing a high-risk move, I'll advise of the odds, that's all.

I know one thing I have NEVER said to an opponent. "Blargleflargle".