"Because It's Funny"

Strat-O-Matic Baseball
Monday began with the third game of my series with Scott. We had finalized our trade before the game, so Manny Ramirez started third in my lineup. I also considered subbing out Travis "K-Factory" Hafner for a new DH, but changed my mind at the last minute. Good thing, too, as Hafner led off the 1st and 3rd innings with solo homers, helping me score one run in each of the first four innings. Not to be outdone, Vladimir Guerrero chalked up 3 RBI on a single, double, and home run to bring Scott back to 4-3 down in the 5th. Then in the bottom of the 5th, Scott vengefully plunked Manny in the head, forcing me to replace him with Kenny Lofton, a weak bat and even weaker fielder. Things were looking bad.

But I managed to load the bases in the bottom of the 6th. Bye bye Jake Westbrook, hello...Francisco Rodriguez (gulp). F-Rod struck out the next two batters, but then walked Helton and Lofton to allow two runs. Scott loaded the bases in the 9th but could only bring one run in, and I survived 7-4. I move up to 10-8 (5-1 in July), Scott down to 14-10.

Lifeboats
I rejoined the main group, where the choice was Celebrities or Lifeboats. Given the chance to screw Michael not just in game choice, but repeatedly for the next hour, we broke out Lifeboats. My second try at this played much like my first -- I got my ship to shore first, but wasted two captains early, thinking nobody else would be silly enough to play captains so early. The other five players pulled off a masterpiece of jumping-out maneuvers, forcing four of my pawns into the same leaky boat, still at the starting line. But they lacked the resolve to finish me, and one by one I got my pawns out (one by drowning, but hey, he got out). Other evil deeds were perpetrated under Sean's umbrella excuse, "Because it's funny."

Like many good negotiation games, the players who most successfully acted small came up big at the end, and Sean nipped Michael by two for the win. Getting my ship in first counted for something, as it broke the tie for last in my favor.

Lord of the Rings
(Knizia cooperative, no expansions)
Al departed and left us with five, and we owed Sauron a beatdown. I've played this game a handful of times and never won -- at some point there always seems to be a run of event tiles, and down we go without recourse.

Not this time. We really did hand Sauron a beatdown, racing through and never seeing the 5th event on any board. We called Gandalf only once (on the final turn) and finished with 21 shields. Sauron was at 14 on the corruption track and no hobbit was above 10. Merry (Travis) was at one, skipping up the path to Mount Doom, eating mushrooms and wondering what everyone was so depressed about.

Getting the Band Back Together
Coming soon....

monday planning; diplomacy; and sabbl

re monday planning
I hope to be at DL by 5:45 although my end of day meetings leave my arrival time uncertain. Dennis, Sean, Michael; what is the forecast look like for SABBL games occuring? Is anybody planning to attend?

re diplomacy
Mark has 4 centers and Dennis has France and so they are running away with it. Also we had to recruit a seventh player from outside SABG because some SABG members apparently are allergic to or phobic about having sharp metal objects shoved in to their backs. Again thanks to Amy for moderating.

re sabbl
We never did see standings in response to Dennis' inquiry so I figured it couldn't hurt if I asked?

Thoughts on "strategy" and "tactics"

Periodically the subject of "strategy and tactics" comes up on BGG. I roll these ideas around in my head (I hope the rattling doesn't bother anyone...much). They describe kinds of planning.

At the most basic level, everyone agrees that tactics are at a "smaller scale" than strategy. In the military "tactical" considerations refer to small numbers of troops, and "strategic" considerations refer to large numbers of troops. My rough rule of thumb for wargames is that tactical games include line-of-sight, and strategic games include supply lines. Many euros offer multiple "paths to victory," and these can be considered strategic choices; while implementing your strategy, you will make numerous smaller, "tactical" decisions. In Princes of Florence, you might pursue a building strategy, and you will have to decide on individual turns how much to pay for various items. You choice of strategy will inform your tactical decisions. To win with a building strategy, you probably need 3 builders, and you just pay whatever the price required.

Chess and go have a rich literature on planning. Chess books describe things like knight forks (where a single knight move attacks simultaneously attacks two pieces) as tactics, and things like connected passed pawns are strategic considerations. Chess books also call these features positional advantages, and at the higher chess levels the game is all about these. Books on chess "strategy" focus heavily on positional play, assuming the player has already mastered tactics. After all, controlling an empty file doesn't do you much good if you drop your queen to a knight fork.

The examples of chess and go show there is another idea floating around here. Sometimes a particular game state or position has a meaning that transcends move-by-move (aka tactical) analysis. It seems this "higher meaning" is related somehow to "strategy," but perhaps not.

Another example from chess. Kasparov was defeated Deeper Blue, and he later commented on one of his games in Time. He described the end game where Deeper Blue made a brilliant pawn sacrifice that shattered Kasparov's position. Kasparov knew he was in trouble, but he didn't see any forcing lines, so he accepted the sacrifice and took the pawn. Deeper Blue went on to win the game. In post-mortem, it turned out the game tree had shrunk to the point that DB was able to compute all possible moves to the end of the game. To DB, it wasn't a sacrifice at all; DB knew it was a game winning move.

It seems strategy and tactics are closely related to intelligence and the ways that humans and computers "think."

Interesting stuff, IMO.

War of the Ring--Free Peoples Military Victory

Almost...Tonight I was inclined to play War of the Ring and Jose gladly took me up on the offer. It was an amazing game that saw the death of Saruman, the Free Peoples come within 1 victory point of a military victory and a single die away from dunking the ring.

We played using the base game only. I wanted to take a turn playing the FP for a change so Jose took his first try as the SA. I found it frustrating that there are so many options available to the FP and so few can be used because of insufficient action dice. Jose learned that the SA are not invincible.

Jose began with a turn 1 attack on Rohan, taking Helms Deep. He took enough casualties that his garrison was sparse. Much to his surprise I rebuilt the army of Rohan, conducted a brief siege of Helms Deep before bypassing it and moving against Orthanc. He had left a small garrison of Elite units to guard Saruman. Lucky for me I drew two Ent cards and had Gandalf the White nearby. The Ents combined with the Elite Riders of Rohan to sack Orthanc and eliminate Saruman.

I then noticed the Shadow strongholds in the north looked a little empty and marched into one. Lacking the right cards, the SA never garrisoned the towns. This left the FP 1 VP away from military victory. Unfortunately, I got a little overzealous and my army left the safety of Orthanc to finish off the orcs. I didn't realize it because of the weird map boundaries, but the Orcs were able to retreat around me and then walk into an empty Orthanc. Doah!!

On to plan 'B'. The hunt box spent most of the game with only 1 die in it so I was able to move the fellowship quickly. The Ringbearers made it into Mordor and began their trek. Strider, Pippin, and Boromir all took one for the team. In the meantime, the SA captured 10 VP worth of cities. The ringbearer had one chance left to make it inside Mt. Doom, only one die left. Unfortunately, the SA player had an event card allowing him to remove my Will of the West die result. Victory to the Shadow Armies.

This was the kind of game that reminds me why I enjoy WotR. I lost but it was a nail biter and I am consoled by the fact that the FP have yet to win.

Jose concluded that he moved too quickly with the SA. I concurred and also cited the lack of dice in the hunt box as the reason for my near victory. When I play SA, I am methodical, placing 2-3 dice in the hunt box every turn. I then slowly move my troops up and finish off one nation at a time before moving onto the next. It's not the most exciting strategy but it works. Maybe that's why I enjoyed the thrill of the Free Peoples so much.

Diplomacy, Gaming Philosophy

I am curious within SABG of how our members would relatively rank the values of the various Diplomacy potential outcomes: win, 2 way-7 way draw, 2nd-6th place survival; 3rd-7th place eliminations? I am curious not just for diplomacy but of course as it points to a wider gaming philosophy. Am i the only one who finds this an intriguing question?

Monday Planning Post

I'll probably be there, although there is a chance I'll be an hour (or so) late. Anyone else?

On a slightly "uh oh" note .... did I leave my copy of Blue Moon anywhere? I've got all my expansions, but can't find the base game....

Efficiency

Meredith returned today from two weeks visiting her parents. In the middle of that, we met in Ohio and went to my cousin's wedding over the long 4th holiday.

With her and Henry gone, I've found myself with quite a bit of free time, and much of that was given over to games.

I've played 3 games of Rommel in the Desert (2 were learning games, 1 was real), 3 games of Warriors of God (2 were learning, 1 was real), and several solo games of BattleLore.

Knowing that I had to meet Meredith this evening at the airport, I knew I had to get some errands done, but I couldn't resist a little morning gaming. I had heard a rumor that several members in the SABG were anxious to play Combat Commander, but you couldn't prove it by the lack-luster response I got to a game request. Luckily, by spreading my net a little wider I was able to land an opponent for the morning.

My Germans were defeated by Kirk's Russians. I had a nice lead during most of the game, but I couldn't figure out a plan for my left flank. Kirk developed a plan before me, and soon my troops were leaderless, and they started dropping rapidly.

Then this afternoon I accomplished the following to prepare for Meredith's return:

• replaced a flat tire and the also flat spare (that was annoying...)
  
• touched up the paint job around our new house numbers
• did several loads of laundry
• replaced all the windshield wiper blades
• did some general straightening and cleaning
  
• bought dinner

And then I left at 6p for the airport. Whew!

Overall quite a productive few weeks. I got a lot of stuff done around the house plus I got to play a lot of games. I would have liked to get in a few more games and tasks, and I was sorry to miss the Mon night meetings, and also Brian and Jacqui's 4th thing. Still, I can't complain.

Now it's back to life with a rambunctious little toddler. He's not quite ready for Combat Commander, but he's starting to get good at peekaboo [not hide and seek...].

Saturday combat, er, planning

So it's Thursday already: is anyone playing this weekend?

Meredith flies back into town Sat night, and I have errands to run...however I have just enough time for a game of Combat Commander in the AM. We can play at my place or your place or DL or whatever. Shoot me an email if you're interested.

Other planning in the comments.

Diplomacy pbem

I would certainly be interested in playing a SABG play by email Diplomacy game and I would be willing to moderate one. Do we have 6-7 other folks interested? (I figure if it is #25 on our top game list there should be a chance.)

Warriors of God

Steve and I got together to put the new game Warriors of God through the paces. We played some learning turns Tues night, then we played out a game tonight.

This game captures the chaotic period around the 100 years war. I use the term "chaotic" deliberately. Leaders and their armies arrive suddenly (but on a fixed schedule) then exit unexpectedly, and the action swirls around the board.

The game has a lot of short term tactics as you respond to the changing board condition. I suspect that over repeated plays, a certain amount of longer term planning would arise based around the known appearance of certain leaders.

One great feature of this game is the asymmetry. The English have a significant military advantage due to the long bow, but the French have a positional advantage due to home field and interior lines. Late in the game, Joan of Arc appears, and she's got some special rules that make her fierce on the battlefield.

After a few games, I think the play time should be in the 3 hr range, which is reasonable for an evening.

After Steve and I got the mechanics down, we played a full game. I took the English, and Steve took the French. The English have an advantage early on, and I put up a small lead. By about turn 4, however, Steve had pulled back to even with a large stretch of interior France under his dominion. This connected domain together with a strong leader helped him loosen my grasp on French soil, and he never looked back after that. I believe his instant victory occurred on turn 9 out of 12.

One interesting thing is that we both lost our home territories about the same time. I launched a major offensive in France, and I gambled that I would be able to hold England by hiding in my castle. Unfortunately, the luck of that die roll went to Steve. My offensive was impressive, but ultimate it netted me few points.

Oh, yeah, victory points...I tend to forget about those...

Anyway, this looks like a fun game. I would say it's "a good game", and "probably I'll suggest it". However, I'm not sure I'd go as far as "will never turn down a game." This puts it around 7-8 on the BGG ratings.

The SABG Top 50 Results for 2008

Took much longer to compile than I thought. Anyway, thanks to everyone who voted, and if you didn't vote, remember that you still get to complain bitterly! And maybe you'll vote next year. Anyway, rather than cut and paste everything here, I'm just going to point you to the geeklist.

Ok, one cut and paste job...

Games that fell off the charts (and their place in 2007):

• San Juan (#2)
• Tigris & Euphrates (#4)
• Hammer of the Scots (#10)
• Stage II (#17)
• EastFront II (#18)
• Shadowfist (#24)
• 7 Ages (#29)
• Phoenicia (#31)
• Dune (#35)
• Werewolf (#40)
• Colossal Arena (#41)
• Samurai (#42)
• Yspahan (#43)
• We the People (#44)
• Twilight Struggle (#45)
• Crusader Rex (#46)
• Loopin Louie (#49)