Question: Anyone ever played Right-hand vs. Left-hand?

[RightDeve]

I love PBEM games, but they're mighty slow. And finding that soul that has the same tastes & standards as you is quite difficult. And it's often the case when you have incurred quite a juicy amount of casualty on the enemy's side, they'll just throw the game away, even if it's only 7 turns into the game (I admit I do this too sometimes).


So I'm thinking if I could have a satisfying game playing against myself (no puns intended).

Pros:

(1). Human vs Human (obviously more challenging than against AI).
(2). Very quick turn-rate.
(3). Easily understandable force composition & dispositions, because we bought & deployed them ourselves. unlike in Scenarios where you have to figure out which unit is where for each battle.
(4). Very modifiable & adjustable battle universe (perfect for role-playing types, for example you can reduce ammo or movement stats to simulate shortage in logistics, change Map, etc etc).
(5). No matter which side loses, we always win (unless we take preference on a certain side).

Cons:

(1). Obviously you know very well the enemy's composition & disposition, and know perfectly his entire plan, even when and where his artillery is going to land. But this is somewhat balanced by the fact OpFire phase is handled independently of human intervention; also the fact the enemy knows very well about you too, so it's about move-countermove-countermove-countermove and so on and so forth.
(2). We have to play both sides, which sometimes can get tedious.
(3). No fun factor as in the case with interacting with other human being.


Do you guys have any thought about this play style? Or if you actually have played such a thing, what's your experience on this?

I heard this is not a rare thing to do, especially in more serious & complex games, with huge amount of units and huge area of map, such as HPS Panzer Campaigns, Modern Campaigns, or even War in The Pacific.



Cheers,
ZA.

[Aeraaa]

I have tried it, and it produces interesting results. One is that it is next to impossible for an attacker to capture many objectives if it is an assault game (unless you deliberately play bad vs. defender). The other is that if you play it cautiously, casualties are much more reasonable (no AI "throw everything and the kitchen sink at the one objective it was captured"). In general it is very difficult to get over the fact that you actually KNOW everything on every side. I can see it working if there are some specific "rules" you apply (like for example do not move the units away because of an artillery barrage you know it is coming, or stick to your orders even if you know that a counterattack is coming on your right flank etc) but it needs significant work from your part.

Let's just say that it isn't better than human vs. AI or PBEM.

[DRG]

The trick for that style of play is to have more than one going on at the same time and you don't play a turn from the same game twice in one day......having other things on your mind and a less than Eidetic memory is also a BIG help

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by DRG

The trick for that style of play is to have more than one going on at the same time and you don't play a turn from the same game twice in one day......having other things on your mind and a less than Eidetic memory is also a BIG help

Interesting title "Right-hand vs Left-hand?" At least we're not pubertal boys at the PC late at night. Okay on with the show.

I've played scenarios in this fashion, but after building one, I won't play it for say two weeks or so. In this way, I become less familiar with details.

=====

[Mobhack]

It is a useful way to try out a human V human scenario you have written to see what it is like to play.

Plan out a "game plan" for player A and B and stick to it. For example "attacker will concentrate on a left-flanking assault".

[Grant1pa]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

It is a useful way to try out a human V human scenario you have written to see what it is like to play.

Plan out a "game plan" for player A and B and stick to it. For example "attacker will concentrate on a left-flanking assault".

This is the way I've done it. Usually a Soviet 80's scenario where I map out a battle plan and then execute it as planned (ala Soviet junior officer doctrine). I usually set the objectives first based on terrain or structures. Plan the attack and deploy the Soviets. Put the game away for awhile, then come back later and place the defensive forces.

Other types I've found somewhat successful are insurgent defense against Green offense. This I find a little easier because once the defense is set, it's generally a slugfest where moving either side can be made in response to action, or plan of action.

I guess it's a holdover from my board gaming days. I played a lot of solitaire play back then.

I've gotten out of habit with this, once I started learning movement orders. I prefer that because I can now make a battle plan and then get reasonable (OK, acceptable) response from the AI in executing it.

Tom

[scorpio_rocks]

I have tried this, I even ran a short lived postal campaign where I completed all combats according to the "plans" of the players. This is, as Mobhack suggested, the way to perform a Self Vs Self game.

[DRG]

I have also, as a change of pace. Set up the game so that the AI controls the infantry on my side and I take charge of the tanks and do whatever it takes to support the infantry. It can be interesting

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by DRG

I have also, as a change of pace. Set up the game so that the AI controls the infantry on my side and I take charge of the tanks and do whatever it takes to support the infantry. It can be interesting

That sounds a very interesting idea, given the AI almost always charges its tanks ahead and hugely outruns its infantry support...

[RightDeve]

Oh my, thank you all so much! These are all cool ideas that I'll ponder, develop, and try. Hopefully I can find a good free time to test them.

Cheers!