Slitherine

So,..at some point in time,...I had a MP game with three players (I'm hiding dates, times, and identities to protect the innocent).

Two were new to me,...and one, I had seen their name for a while.
They were all losing miserably,.....and after the shock set in,..they all said this, "This game is too gamey".
Usually, they'll also follow-up with the infamous, "This scenario is too one-sided".

Now I'm going to use the Desert Fort as an example.
I usually answer the second statement with a "I also thought the Germans could not win Desert Fort, until I found a way (meaning tactics) to win a majority of the time.
Then I'll offer to switch sides, beat them again,.....and receive silence.

However,....the first statement, "This game is too gamey",...has me puzzled.
What is it that they're looking for,...????
What I really think they mean is,..."Looks like you've played this scenario a Gazillion times, and you know all of the hiding places, and the starting points for all troops".
And to that,...I might agree to some point,...except,..even though I have indeed played Desert Fort and Christmas Surprise a Gazillion times,...I still lose games.
Usually I'll lose games when I get cocky by not showing respect to my opponent.
In one such game, I parked two tanks with their backs facing an enemy Infantry unit. Both tanks were destroyed on my opponents turn.

My whole point is this,...I do not think the "BA is gamey", for one specific reason,...you have humans playing as opponents not computers.
I truly never know where, when, or how my opponent will attack (or defend).
This game is not like Checkers,....this game is more like Chess.

What do you think?

Perfect response John...
I think alot of people see it cosmetically and get the assumption that it is too gamey(simplistic?)...but, they have obviously not played it enough to learn that it is a great game...Frustrating at times...lol, But a great game none the less.
Mike

I think 'gamey' is gamerspeak for the game rewards skill too greatly, and newcomers too harshly.

I suppose there are just too many people in the gaming world that actually think god mode and game guides are actually mandatory.

I have never played a game in god mode, because frankly my ego won't let me. The idea I can't beat a game without cheating is something I could never accept.

And the idea I need to read a book revealing all the game's secrets is not much different than god mode. I'd rather play a game till I actually learn all the secrets the hard way.

But I predate electronic gaming. There's a reason some board game wargamers like myself are of the opinion I can fold spindle and in general mutilate the average gamer in a game of turn based skill rather than mouse savvy because we were taught in a time when there were no tutorials, you read the manual first completely there was no options to no do so. You played the game till you actually understood it and you got trashed till you did.

I can spend 5 minutes with most computer wargames, and then casually tell you where it succeeds or fails because often it is obvious to a veteran wargamer. Sound arrogant? too bad, I CAN do it, I've been playing wargames for 35+ years. I began with Squad Leader and Third Reich.

BA is so great, because it is so much like chess. Yes, there ARE right and wrong initial placements and movements and the units DO have qualities that work in some parts of the map better than others. I have watched Tigers and Panthers get cherry picked like Stuarts and then listen to the opponent whine about how the game is unrealistic. Nope, they were just getting owned by a chess player.

My biggest complaint with BA is how too many call it cartoony and then go off thinking the game is too lite on skill needed and how something monstrous like War in the East is magically a harder game to play and looks more serious. That's like calling Chess cartoony because the pieces don't look detailed enough somehow, or how a themed set might not look serious enough. You will still get your butt stomped by a good chess player though, regardless of how the pieces are carved.
I don't rate a game based on how the graphics are rendered. I don't consider it less serious because of the animations, and I don't consider the artwork at the beginning of a battle some sort of slam on how accurate the game will be.

I do think it takes some time before players can grasp that 4 squares away is not merely 2 squares closer than 6 squares away. It matters whether you fully move a unit then move another instead of move a unit one square then see what happens, then move another unit one square and see what happens. And if you fire a unit at a target and nothing happens, then you try another unit from another location maybe, because repeated shots from one source is not always the right approach. And that is a reflection of skill in the game.

You can pick almost any game, and it will have 'gamey' aspects that the skilled will have uncovered. Steel Panthers has what is called the Kubel blitz. Because a kubelwagen costs no real points, has incredible amounts of movement, and you can drive it all over the damned place attracting all sorts of response fire to which you can then react to skillfully. It's totally cheesy of course. Sort of like the Zerg rush.

One of the best things they did for BA was give tanks a reverse move command. Drove me nuts trying to get a tank back out of a bad spot before that. Now if we could just find a way to simulate smoke without it mangling the over all game. I love smoke in Steel Panthers.

DSWargamer wrote: It matters whether you fully move a unit then move another instead of move a unit one square then see what happens, then move another unit one square and see what happens. And if you fire a unit at a target and nothing happens, then you try another unit from another location maybe, because repeated shots from one source is not always the right approach. And that is a reflection of skill in the game.

Hi DSWargamer - I was very interested in your comments here but am not sure I understand you completely. Why do you say that 4+2 is not the same as moving 6? Why may repeated shots not always be right? Sorry for sounding thick but would you mind expanding on what you said?

It translates as "sore loser" ......... Or in the longer version "I am a genius and I only lose because the game is too gamey or bad luck"

Hi John

In the game, ranges are not what they are in most games. 1 square is just one square, but 2 squares is not merely just 1 square twice. The ranges are abstracted. Thus 7 squares away can best be thought of as like the scale they measure earth quakes on. 3 doesn't equally follow 2 in an even progression, and 4 is not just 1 more than 3. 5 is not simply 5 x 1.

I have seen in threads that this has confused more than a few gamers. Most wargamers are used to thinking if a unit is X hexes away, it is X even consistent hexes in distance as if measured with a tape measure.

So anything that uses distance as a means of measurement in Battle Academy might confound a wargamer until they grasp the rather peculiar math involved. And sadly I am more a history teacher than a math teacher so my explanation gets a bit wonky past that one above

Now as for the tactics, every time a unit performs an action, it risks a reaction. If the reaction is only a small chance on the first action, then it is logical to try a new unit before trying yet again with the same original unit if performing an immediate second action risks a higher chance of reaction. So, if you have a Tiger tank problem, and ou have 2 infantry types, an anti tank gun and a tank in position to take shots, and you have a mortar available to shoot. You'd use mortar first, and get the suppression on the Tiger, then use the infantry 1 shot each to further harass the Tiger, then hit it with the anti tank gun which being harder to see will be easier to defend, and then you risk the shot with the tank. By the time the tank has taken the shot, the Tiger will have become rather set upon and supressed to the point it's reaction to the tank should be a lot safer. To just lay in on the Tiger with the tank and to blam away at it with the tanks entire budget of shots risks the Tiger tanks response and a Tiger will usually kill most allied tanks if it hits at all. The thing is, an infantry unit can lose a trooper and not be 'dead'. But a Sherman with a hole in it is now a wreck and you don't get to use a medic on a tank.

A player's turn is all happening at once. But if you use up a unit fully before you move on to another, you lose any sort of semblance of combined arms cooperation effect.