[OT] The Art of Winning Games

[Slick]

It's not whether you win or lose... It's whether you win.

Slick.

[spoon]

A few bits of wisdom from this site :
If ya ain't cheatin', ya ain't tryin'.
-Unknown

If it's a fair fight, you haven't done your job.
-Unknown

[Puke]

in the spirit of the thread, im going to totally disregard the topic of the off-topic thread, and swing onto an off-off-(yet still not on topic)-topic. its probably not very sporting of me.

I generally like to keep things above board. its okay to try hard and innovate, but there is always a good reason to play by the rules and of the gentelmanly rules - at least until you understant what the game is trying to teach you. once you have that down, go ahead and find new ways to win.

Wargames, just like sports or martial arts, are training you to be a more efficient killer of human beings. some on larger scales than others. many people complain that martial arts are coreographed or unrealistic, and that may be the case. but there is a good reason for them being coreographed - they need to be to properly teach a technique. one you know a technique, you can then improvise. now some are showier than others, but i wont get started on that tangent.

This has some very good applications (though not directly) to scenarios in computergames, wargames, or what have you. many people want wargame scenarios to be balanced. equal forces, equal chances of obtaining victory conditions. many people like "points" systems for buying supposedly equal forces with which to face off in a wargame. this pertains to some sort of sense of "fair play," but personally i think its stupid.

as mentioned below, if its a fair fight, you have generally done something wrong. there are not a whole lot of fair fights in warfare, and wither in war or in a brawl, most people are not going to fight unless they think they can win. most people require a fairly good reason for thinking they can win, but even so, are wrong more than 50% of the time. anyhow, back to balanced scenarios.

scanarios and battles in warfare are generally unbalanced things. why should a game go to such pains to make a balanced scenario? play the feking thing lopsided! if you want a fair test of skills, then play it a second time with the sides reversed. simple, effective, accurate test of skills. better chance to learn from your opponent.

play the scenario a few more times, switching sides. eventually, you will learn the best tactics from each other, gamey tactics or not, and will have most possible outcomes pretty well licked. then changed the scenario. maybe you will eventually find weaknesses in the game system that you need to correct, or will switch to a different game system entirely.

eventually, through practice and experimenting with tactics, you will become a good little general, and an efficient killer of human beings, if the occasion should ever arise. Thats how wargames were invented, after all: Need to train those officers!

but the basic points are, that rules and fair play exist for a reason - so that you can learn what they system or scenario or sport or martial art is trying to teach you. when you're good enough, then you should start screwing with it and abusing it.

but im guessing most of the schlocks that think they are good enough to screw with the system and exploiting rules, have simply glazed over the fundamental principals of the game, and could not suceed in a 'fair' challenge if they ever wanted to try.

god knows i cant - thats why i try to play 'fair' - because i know i have not yet mastered everything the system has to teach. danm, aren't i tricky? pulled the post back around to on-off-topic without any warning at all!

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Slick:
It's not whether you win or lose... It's whether you win.

Slick.

The traditional way of phrasing is:
It's not whether you win or lose... it's whether I win.

[Erax]

Puke :

Fiddling around with the system to find a new way to win is all well and good, as long as your opponent has fair warning (he doesn't have to know what you are going to do, just that you will be trying new, different and possibly game-breaking tactics).

And while I agree that wargames are a training for war, I think you're still standing too close to the forest. The purpose of games is the same as that of fiction : to allow you to make the choices you would have to make in a dangerous situation, without placing yourself in actual danger.

[Loser]

The war-game was actually invented by H. G. Wells, a pacifist, to quell man's desire for war. I'll get links for this later, maybe.

[Cyrien]

Yep... and the Maxim Machine Gun was created to end wars due to the incredible increase in the ability to kill people, the first one fired a symbolic 666 bullets a minute. And one of the first designers of ballistae in ancient times thought the same... and probably numerous others.

Personally I think people should get the hint. Humans beings are not going to stop hurting and fighting each other. And that is the way it is. Look in nature and try to find a creature that does not engage in violence. Violence is hard coded into nature. With humans it is just much worse because we can think of better ways to hurt each other.

Hrmm... that was a nice little OT.