RC11 AAR

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[Cybvep]

Surface Ships focus? Does the Axis player plan for Sea Lion?

[rkr1958]

Surface Ships focus? Does the Axis player plan for Sea Lion?

I missed that. Nice catch. I emailed the axis player with this question and his response was "oh shoot [or something like that] I meant to focus on subs. I guess I wasted a focus point."

[rkr1958]

Surface Ships focus? Does the Axis player plan for Sea Lion?

I missed that. Nice catch. I emailed the axis player with this question and his response was "oh shoot [or something like that] I meant to focus on subs. I guess I wasted a focus point."

I just got a follow-up email from the axis player that I thought I'd share quote from with you. "I guess I got so flustered by the poor weather in Central Europe stopping my invasion of Norway that I got careless and selected the wrong focus area. I guess someone in the armament ministry will pay dearly for that mistake. "

By the way, instead of calling our two players the axis player and allied player I'd like to adopt a nifty nickname for each. I'd like to open this up for suggestions. By the way, I don't want to use any obvious political names (e.g., Adolph).

[pk867]

Colonel Klink and Colonel Hogan ?

[Cybvep]

Starsky and Hutch? <rotfl>

[rkr1958]

Colonel Klink and Colonel Hogan ?

I like it! I guess we could also refer to the Russians as Col. Ivan. So I guess the allied player with have dual personalities.

By the way, I was rethinking the "mistake" made by Col Klink on his research focus. You don't think he's trying to play a fast one on me do you? That is, he is planning to try Sea Lion and is trying to sneak that focus through and his email is designed to throw me off in the hopes that I let something slip to the allied player. My head hurts ...

[BuddyGrant]

Colonel Klink and Colonel Hogan ?

No offense to the Axis side, but the tech focus error definitely sounds like sounds Colonel Klink .

Based on this start I want to point out a key reason that makes play-testing any complex strategy game so difficult. So far we have two dice roll effects that might have a fairly significant impact on this game. The rather fortunate (for the axis) Case White turn 1 rolls and the rather unfortunate (again, for the axis) weather roll for turn 3. These early events will always have a much greater impact on the game than later dice rolls, and because of this we can never accurately base the side parity (Axis advantage Vs. Allied advantage) on a single game. The only way remotely accurate play-testing can take place is by looking at a larger group of games, ideally between the same players and ideally with them each taking both sides in those multiple games. For one example of what I mean, during the Panzer General scenario testing in the early 1990's only concurrent games (where the same players played the same game from each side) were submitted for play-test results. A longer, grand strategy game like CEAW GS is much harder to balance than a single scenario, so the chance for inaccurate test results is magnified further. Due to the game length and time required, it is also much more time consuming to test a game like CEAW GS.

Also note that any early player errors (like the tech focus here) will have a much bigger impact than similar errors later in the game. This viewpoint likely sounds obvious, but yet whenever I see an AAR where one of the GS developers says "This game makes me think that the Axis/Allied side has too much of an advantage" I cringe, thinking you guys might actually be basing important dev changes on single games . Hopefully once the game is released, you can base any further parity concerns by tracking only game results where the same two players, using the same game version, play the game from each side.

[rkr1958]

[pk867]

I don't the the Russian would have a lowly Colonel, it should be General Ivan to you!

[rkr1958]

I don't the the Russian would have a lowly Colonel, it should be General Ivan to you!

General Ivan it is then.

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

Based on this start I want to point out a key reason that makes play-testing any complex strategy game so difficult. So far we have two dice roll effects that might have a fairly significant impact on this game. The rather fortunate (for the axis) Case White turn 1 rolls and the rather unfortunate (again, for the axis) weather roll for turn 3.

I'm not sure the specific rolls you're referring to on turn 1. The outcome, now that the strategy was explained to me, sees fairly typical and not lucky. But I do agree with you about the weather rolls on turn 3 and turn 4. Turn 3 was bad for weather roll for the axis but turn 4 turned out to be a very good roll for them. Personally, I do like the variability in that it can take each game in a different direction even with players are playing the same strategy.

If you've ever played AH 3rd Reich it's like rolling a 4 on the 2-1 attack in Poland and then rolling a 5. Ouch ... that certainly took the game in a different direction.

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]

[rkr1958]