Regular opponent burnout

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Has anyone noticed this in SC yet?

I only experience this routinely in board games, but was wondering if anyone has noticed this in SC yet.

I refer to the phenomenon of been there done that no surprises from you any more sort of thing.

I know with a friend of mine, he always does things a certain way (sometimes it can be really tricky breaking out of a mold).

Some strategies become predictable due to them being the best of the best so much so that to do anything else is suicide in victory terms.

[pzgndr]

With different scenarios, different player settings and different game options to choose from, you have to work hard at making this game dull. Throw in random research results and variable political events and each game is unique.

A deeper question, given that some basic strategies are likely to be used more often than others, is what incentive do players have to deviate from their "perfect" plans? Variants have been proposed, like in 3R, to give sides particular benefits. Often these come with strings attached, like Turkey activates as an Axis minor if certain conditions are met, thus providing an incentive to go make it happen. Variants and additional game options would be nice enhancements in some future version.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I myself use A3R as my best example.

When playing that game against skilled players, certain moves left unaddressed, just ensure you see what 3 move check mate looks like in a wargame.

But it happens even more so when playing against a regular opponent. Because often we refuse to do anything "odd" and as a result our play style becomes a bit predictable.

For instance, I can tell you EXACTLY where each polish unit will get placed in setting up a game of A3R. Simply because I have seen the maxed out defense vs the maxed out attack so often now.

I am interested in how many ways that SC can provide for avoiding this effect.

[pzgndr]

Because often we refuse to do anything "odd" and as a result our play style becomes a bit predictable.

True. Once we resolve play balance issues and get some other tweaks implemented, we may find the standard campaign game with default options becoming somewhat predictable.

The Polish setup comment brings back an early suggestion to make setups more variable. That would spice up the game some.

Another possibility, assuming we can assign relative value to the various game options, is to have a wildcard game option where options are randomly selected and players don't know what they are. Are Axis minors historical or random? Is Siberian transfer going to happen or not? We would want to ensure play balance is maintained, that's why we need to know what the relative values are. But wouldn't that be cool? How would you play if you didn't KNOW what the game settings are?? :cool:

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

[QBHow would you play if you didn't KNOW what the game settings are?? :cool: [/QB]

Differently.

I'd probably be a great deal more cautious. It'd certainly add another dimension of uncertainty, which would increase the sense of tension.

I agree, it would be cool.

[Titan]

Im growing tired of the 50 Aircraft i get bombarded with each time i watch my opponents turn.Not his fault but any one or two locations are immpossible to defend against mass Air attacks,but in one game as Axis ive counted 18 Air units i get attack by each turn and ive started another game and its still 1940 and my opponent is on his way there with only 7 German Air units so far.

Not there Fault,but the game lets that happen,i really look more for a ground battle with Air in a supporting role,but the way it is ive grown bored with this already.No fun watching a carefully Contructed Ground defence get its lines blowen appart by these continious and unending Air attacks which seems to the way to win these days,and as allies there aint alot you can do

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Yep, a bit of uncertainty might go a looooooong way in curbing "best foot forward" play styles.

I would never object to a player using a technique to clober me with, simply because I would do it myself in their place.

If the game allows it, then it is "fair". If it is idiotic and game ruining, then it needs to be "edited from the design".

That is primarily why A3R went to hmmm I guess you could call the last incarnation of A3R known as "Classic" as 6th Edition. The game evolved due to players demanding some elements change.

Houserules will never "fly" with me simply because I am not into playing the game with a never ending spiral of biased choices to some extent.

If I have a game of SC going, I am going to exploit it to the limit. I expect my opponent to do the same.

I might have no trouble agreeing on a common version of preference (this occurs in Steel Panthers at least).

Having the starting conditions as a variable the other is not fully cognizant of, might help to make the opponent not go to far off the deep end in a preferred "style" of play.

Best upset I have ever had, was a starting option I had as Russian player in A3R. It allowed me the option to attack Romania right at the start, and effectively sit on Germany's oil resources.

Poof! trashed his war effort in a stroke.

Suuuuuuure a skilled player can take Romania back. But it put Germany at war with Russia right at the get go, without them even having had the chance to attack France.

Nasty things random hidden options.

Of course some options have limited worth, or require specific conditions and or goals be kept in mind.

But for SC to achieve the pinnacle of success that A3R achieved, it must divest itself of "gamey" tactics, or be cursed to wear a lable of being just a detailed Axis & Allies (which I love, but it isn't any A3R).