Changing the attack rules?

[korexus]

[Edit after splitting the thread]
These posts have been moved from the Suburbia thread, so that it can be used for discussion of the rules. Any further thoughts about changing the attack rules (or the transform rules, or whatever) please put here.
[/Edit]

But, for anyone who is unsure, the Standard WoK (and hence the Duel) engine counts the number of orders inputted, regardless of whether or not they are valid. Hence the situation as described here by Hryll wouldn't work. - The first 3 orders would fail if Han hadn't taken the province and the others wouldn't even have been tried. Of course, if he had more tech points this would be close on the erfect strategy.

*Disclamer, I haven't looked at the turn reports yet. Maybe Hryll had more tech points and is bluffing, maybe he didn't and got lucky. I ain't saying nuthing!*

Chris.

PS. After this game is over, we could add a trimmed version of these comments (without all the single, double and tripple bluffing) to the turn commentary and link it as a Duel example game. It could be very inforative for new players...

[trewqh]

But, for anyone who is unsure, the Standard WoK (and hence the Duel) engine counts the number of orders inputted, regardless of whether or not they are valid.

But, what you wrote is true only about attack orders, not about POP->ARM orders, right? I mean, if you order 3 POP->ARM transformations in a province you don't have, you can still change POP->ARM 3 times in provinces you do have.

[korexus]

Correct. That is one of the things we changed when updating the engine. POP->ARM transforms only count if you own the province, so you can try to make 7 sets of armies if you are unsure which provinces you will own after the attacking phase. Come to think of it, that does mean we have an inconsistant approach. Should we change the attacking rules? (Advanced WoK does allow attack as Hryll stated after all...)


Chris.

[trewqh]

I'm in two minds. It would make the game more complex by adding more possibilities (which is good) but at the same time it would make going later in the OoP much more desirable (increasing the importance of a lucky OoP) since it only allows to react to attacks already performed by somebody else. Consequently, the game might become more defensive.

Maybe we could make it an option.

[Hannibal]

Hmmm. Tough call. My first instinct was to applaud Hryll for his brilliant 7-attack-order-contingency-plan, so that whichever first 3 of them were valid would apply. So he essentiaaly created two attack plans, the second happening if the first turns out to be invalid. Even more brilliant than I had thought he'd done! Cos I like the rules to reward clever play like that.

BUT.

I've thought it through a bit more. Should we reward that kind of brilliant thinking by making it so that the engine allows you three VALID attacks, rather than uses up your max three attacks even if some of them are invalid, such that you can do a second-choice attack-plan with your remaining orders...?

On balance, NO, IMHO. Which is strange coming from me, since I'm known for leaning towards attacking, lateral, and adventurous play. For the excitement over predictability.

The reason I'm a "No" on this: Whilst it DOES allow clever contingency-planning, it would have worse counterbalancing negative effects on the game. IMHO. Among decent players, it would then become the necessary, automatic, NORM. Whenever you had a host to go forward with, you would automatically use up 1-3 attack-orders to FIRST counter anybody having nicked any ADJACENT-TO-YOU province (if OOP risked that), kinda standard practice, and THEN go on to do your "real" orders ... It would become almost bureaucratic as a thing you gotta remember to do before your REAL orders ...

And it would actually inhibit most adventurous play[!]. The risk-taker goes and nabs the enemy heavy's provs .... great ... but less great if the enemy can always build in contingency-first-attack-orders, such that he can retake the prov if taken, BUT, if it's not taken, have those orders ignored and revert to his main attack-plan .... So the defending player has to be bright on 7-order-contingency-attacks, but does NOT have to decide between defending and attacking , right??

It would become "automatic/bureaucratic" among good players? It's much more skilfull to make a player CHOOSE whether to use his 3 attacks defensively, if he outguesses his opponent, on provs the other guy might take, OR to use all 3 attacks to go forward .... that's a SKILL decision which is less vital if you can organise 7 attack-orders into two (both) plans ...

Hey, far more skill-oriented if one player can scout forward and nick a prov or two, thus giving the Big guy a dilemma, if he sees it coming, of EITHER countering it OR going for his attack-plan, but not BOTH, one after the other....

Net, I reckon the original rules-devisers got it right: best is as now: only your first three attack orders are valid.

Hey, one up for the original designer! One area where I'm not suggesting any tweak at all!

[trewqh]

Also, counting performed attacks instead of attack orders, would make TECH points less important and I don't think that is desirable.

[Hannibal]

Also, counting performed attacks instead of attack orders, would make TECH points less important and I don't think that is desirable.

Yep, that too, well spotted. Another reason for keeping it as-is.

As for consistency ... is T right that you can submit 4 or more POP-ARM transforms and the engine will use the first 3 valid ones?! I didn't know that .... [edit: just noticed that Kor said this was true now since an update]

Maybe, for consistency and simplicity, we oughtta make that like for attacks; ie you use up your 3 with 3 SUBMITTED rather than only with 3 valid? I'd favour that. For same reasons as above: the player has to balance his odds of taking a place, or playing safe by transforming where he is more sure to have POP, ie a skill/judgement call rather than having it both ways.

Plus it's consistent and easier to describe in the rules!

So, Kor, you maybe didn't escape some re-coding! Oh, and one up to the original designer again! (I'm storing up these as-original points, against some changes I DO want to suggest ....).

[trewqh]

Maybe, for consistency and simplicity, we oughtta make that like for attacks; ie you use up your 3 with 3 SUBMITTED rather than only with 3 valid? I'd favour that.

This time I disagree.

For one, there is no direct relation between these potential transformations and other factors of the game (like with OoP and TECH in case of attacks). I see my enemy took some provinces and I have to guess in which he might have transformed POP->ARM. And while guessing it is the territorial situation that is important, not the way my enemy planned his orders.

The other argument is that a player does have to choose to use up his transform orders on those potential POP->ARM transformations. So he does make a choice to give something up whereas in the case of attacks the player does not have to give up anything.

[korexus]

Well argued, trewqh. I need you to keep my work load down, now Donut is back!

To keep things clear, I think this discussion should be split to another thread.

Chris.

[Hannibal]

Maybe, for consistency and simplicity, we oughtta make that like for attacks; ie you use up your 3 with 3 SUBMITTED rather than only with 3 valid? I'd favour that.

This time I disagree.

I see my enemy took some provinces and I have to guess in which he might have transformed POP->ARM. .

Hiya! Look, I don't mind if I lose the debate on this one, I don't feel strongly either way, but surely, T, you might be right, but your argument for it is wrong?

"I see my enemy .....". You are somehow looking at it as if the issue is what you can assume about your OPPONENT's transforms .... hey, you are way ahead of us there. No, the issue is what it does to your OWN decisions on your OWN transforms; Do you assume you'll have taken or held that third prov attacked? Do you do transforms THERE, at the battlefront, in order to save a move or two of your 7 move orders? Or do you play more cautiously, in THIS bit of the map, assessing your chances, and use your 3 POP-ARM transforms closer to home, where they are more sure to happen, not risk them in a prov you are only hopeful that you'll own by the end of the turn .....

Me, I can't see ANY difference between the skill required here and the skill required for deciding 3 attacks. You are forced to make a judgement, balance the probabilities, decide to take risks or play safe... True for 3 attacks (where you and I don't want the game to allow contingency orders [unless you made the Tec]0, and surely EQUALLY true for having to decide where your max of 3 POP-ARM transforms will be? Same skill?

Hey, I like complexity, it tends to give me options but I have a feeling that this, just like attacks, allows you to play-safe with effectively alternate-orders for transforms, rather than have to make a decision on the odds. Exactly as for the 3-attacks orders. No?

[korexus]

True, but I did like trewqh's argument about sacrificing.

If you have 3 attack orders and 7 slots, you might as well use all the slots if the engine will allow it, but with transforms, using all the slots for armies means making no more WOK (for the prosperous player) and no mor POP (for the desperate player). You are having to choose not to do something else in order to cover your options on making armies, that might not always be a problem, but different people put diffrent values on armies and economies so there won't be some standard way of playing this bit.

I think.


korexus.

[Hryllantre]

Being (pretty much) a noob +1 VP (still not updated) I thought I'd cover all possible attack paths. It wasn't to my knowledge that the game generator would discount my 4th - 7th orders had the first three not succeeded.

If however Han is still scared of his opponents genius tendencies ( ) then I will however (in this instance alone) accept your unconditional surrender. At no stage after receiving said surrender will I taunt or indeed lol when I notice that your online.

[Hannibal]

Just caught this. Scared? Hah! More like terrified.

Hmm, so I have a choice between getting my way on the rules ... or surrendering unconditionally in Duel Suburbia?!....... hmmm.... I think I'll decide on that AFTER the next turn .... hehe....I hope! Just teasing.

[korexus]

Right, so I'm leaving both rules as they stand for now. Do either of these points need an explanatory note in the new manual?


Chris.

[trewqh]

I think, yes. That will give new players some more insight into the game's mechanic, I believe.