:)...after some receipts of posts from some my opponents...and from our bantering back and forth...and years of playing...
...for me...whenever I'm playing a scenario...I do not ever look at the victory progression of a scenario while I'm playing, consequently the end result ends up as a surprise to me (more or less). I read the scenario description, look over the map and go to town...it is rather fun, although I do loose a lot.
How many scientists are out there who guage their progression by reading the level of victory achieved, turn by turn...as one extreme...and who, are the "Patton's" out there who just do it and wait for a decision at the end of a scenario...as the opposite?
...real commanders do not have detailed point listings describing their level of victory at their every move..."halftracks" (that must have been a burp, sorry)...
I think it would add another dimension to the game by playing without looking at victory status during a scenario...your thoughts?
sincerely
curt
tenacity versus approach...is not something that can be quantified...only abstracted. More realistically, look at the map, feel your forces...touch the enemy...
Respectfully, the levels of victory given in this game, turn by turn, are as artificially unrealistically available to the field commander as are the unrealistic abilities of halftracks or trucks and any number of things.
I was not asking for judgements...just oppinions...
again...with much respect...that is true...
sincerely
curt
but please, let me be precise...
...I did not say..."do not look at the victory conditions prior to starting a scenario"...what I said was "refrain from looking at the tool that allows one to see ones approach (or decline) from victory, turn by turn"...
...I do hope that helps to explain my statement...
cheers
I think this is very much a personal thing, touching on, as it does, ones own attitudes to success- my meaning in this case success at CS as it is measured by the victory conditions. I fully acknowledge that every Blitzer has his own attitude to the game -to others simply playing the game may be enough for complete satisfaction.
I can of course only speak for myself. I think I play intuitively rather than systematically or cerebralyy, but I plan %age-wise. I like to win. Hence, if things are turning to custard ( as they are wont to do), I will try to set up so that the cystard becomes safe to walk on -away from the grim wastelands of defeat to the sterile comfort of a draw.
Check my draw %age - not far off 25%, which is higher than most
Cheers
KKR
KKR, indeed, whatever it was you said...I do agree wholeheartedly...
for real
cheers
that touches on the core of the question, as envisioned...
are we wargamers, historical attainers...or just jock straps?....:mad:
I didn't look at the "score" in a game I was playing because it was obvious to me that my opponent would have to capture a bulk of my concentrated towns for a victory and I concentrated on defending those VP's.
I discovered, after 10 moves that he already had a major victory and hadn't taken but two or three towns on the outskirts of my major concentration of communities.
I failed to grasp the victory requirements for both myself and my opponent and just glancing at the map proved fatal for me in this particular scenario.
Pat
Personally, I look at the victory conditions, look at the map, set a plan in my head, then start the battle. I don't look at the victory conditions again until the last couple of turns to see if I need to do a "crazy Ivan" to get some kind of result (I see it as throwing in the kitchen sink - think of Balaclava)....but by then, you usually know if you deserve to have won or lost or drawn anyways....
How can you mention "halftracks" (even if it was a burp) and Patton in the same post without getting flamed???? I raise you a truck surround, a leader drawing op-fire, and a "Monty" - see how you like that! :smg: