Striker wrote:I'll add in a post on the 2 move vs. Strategic move debate.
...I found myself questioning the creditability of your report.....
The reason I’m even getting into all this is because I don’t want to simply KILL what may be a great game mechanic because of one game report that made no sense to me especially when the author has demonstrated his ability to spin things... ...“Krieg and I pointed out...” That never happened. Sorry
That was a long post to accuse my credibility. Especially one so centered on semantics.
Allow me to defend myself.
I don't have the same relationship with Krieg you may have, I didn't know if he had or had not played games with the strategic movement mechanic. I took his post at face value that he had worries of the "ping-pong", not thinking my single game report would form the basis of his opinion. In hindsight, I made a poor assumption.
I'm sorry for being ignorant of who "coined the term". I joined this "conversation" for lack of better term after the beginning and saw the term thrown around by multiple people. I was not attributing it to anybody, you read far too much into that statement.
One more sentence about this increasingly ad hominem focused argument. From what you've posted you sound as I I have some malignant objective. Whats my ulterior motive? Why would I make up a game report of BS to influence a change in rules direction? I'd like to think I am just a fan of the series of wants to maximize his enjoyment out of the franchise. When I had an opportunity to playtest possible rules, I took it and gave my report of what happened and opinions based off that game. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, I'm going to give one last crack at trying to contribute constructively.
Let's define the "ping pong" here. In the game I wrote up on Germany went from focusing west initially to create a territory buffer, then strategic moved east to focus completely on Moscow, then on turn it guaranteed a Russian revolution it strategic moved back to the french front. I called this a "ping pong" as it involved the near entirety of the German army attacking one front at a time while leaving nothing on the other. Am I looking at this wrong? Is this an unwanted or an expected thing to happen?
If it helps make things more clear, I played Germany the game we tried out SM. As one tends to try out with play-testing, I saw a potential flaw with the SM mechanic and I took it to the extreme, seeing if I could "break the game" by "abusing" the mechanic. That games experience led me to believe that not all was good with the SM mechanic.
BTW, I'm surprised if 25 units is the largest stack you've seen. With three versions of ruleset's that I've played, my group has seen multiple stacks of 50+ units, with the record being an 80 large German stack due to a defensive stalemate/standoff with France+allies.(Good thing I bought an extra bag of chips online!). I have to ask, what is the norm for other people?
To be clear, I'm not trying to "Kill strategic movement". I simply tried to point out flaws in the system, unwanted "side effects" if you will, that I think would be nice to be dealt with. I had nothing against the "experiment"(hence why I tried it), I just expected the results to not be laughed at.
I'm not so arrogant as to think that my one game should direct the flow of rules direction. My gaming group is one "sample". Your playtesters (I have no idea how many you play with) is another "sample". Both of us are at risk of our individual results being skewed due to our gaming groups playstyle. That said, I'd like to see more games from other groups get played to see where the pattern lies before the idea is "officially" accepted or dismissed.
I can certainly join with you in that shared ambition.
I'd like to see more games from other groups get played to see where the pattern lies before the idea is "officially" accepted or dismissed.
Great response by the way...