Pursuing Mastery: 2017 Edition

Feb 11 2017

Games

In my opinion, the best way to get good at playing is to play. Since it's not possible to play All The Games, it's necessary to choose one or more games for repeated play. Since I get bored playing the same game over and over, I've chosen a small selection of games which have high repeat play potential.

OCS system

I'm lumping all OCS games together as the time commitment for any one of them is extreme compared to most of the other games I own, but the playing skills are portable across all the games in the system. Getting better at playing one OCS title will increase the enjoyment for any other OCS title.

So far I've played scenarios from Tunisia, Baltic Gap, DAK and Case Blue. I really like this system.

France '40

I really like Mark Simonitch's France '40.

So far I've played the full France '40 game four times and Ukraine '43 twice.

For France '40, I've started developing smaller scenarios exploring situations in the first few turns, in small sections of the map.

Chadwick's Eastern Front games

I'm lumping Battle for Moscow, Target Leningrad, Objective Kiev and The Arduous Beginning into the same slot as these four games are very similer in most respects. They play quickly on small maps with few units, no or low stacking, and concise rules, which are very similar between all the games. They are packed in small zip lock bags which take up very little space no matter stored. They aren't the easiest to teach, but they do solo well enough to learn winning strategies for either side.

At the moment, I've played Battle for Moscow 12 times, Objective Kiev 12 times, and Target Leningrad 12 times. I've purchased The Arduous Beginning but haven't yet played it.

I can see myself playing any of these games many, many times. In fact, I've played Battle for Moscow in parallel with Fire in the Lake.

PanzerBlitz

I'll probably lose 90% of my readers right here, but that's fine. I like PanzerBlitz quite a bit. It's not a difficult game to learn or teach, and it plays pretty fast. And I have some backstory with the game.

As it turns out, I acquired my first copy of PanzerBlitz in 1972. I must have been 11 years old at the time. I did not find any one else willing to play it, and I was just a little too young to work through it on my own. After some moves around the country, a couple of years with early RPGs, my interest in playing games evaporated in favor of extreme (outdoor) sports, which wasn't really a thing back then.

Fast forward to my current advancing decrepitude, a career in software application development, running across the mongo OGRE/GEV Kickstarter, and my interest in playing games in general was reawakened, with a specific interest in wargames. What would be more natural than picking up a used copy of PanzerBlitz on eBay for $30? Nothing, that's what.

At the time of writing, I've got 27 plays of PanzerBlitz. About 2/3 are solo plays. I've all 12 scenarios in the box at least once, with the rules as written. I've play 10 of the scenarios solo, most of them twice, the first time to get a feel for the scenario, the second time "playing for keeps."

I'd like to eventually finish out all the classic scenarios with two solo games each, then work through each of these scenarios opposed taking each side once.

I have also played Situation #3 using Alan Arvold's alternate OOB, and it is outstanding, even with the rules as written. I suspect most of the other scenarios could be slightly modified for large improvement.

Regarding "panzerbush:" I will only say that I served in the USMC in 2d Recon Battalion, which earned me professional experience in identifying enemy units at distance. I don't have any issue with "panzerbush."

Ogre/GEV

Of the remaining 10%, I'll probably lose another 90% of readers with this.

But Ogre really got me into wargaming in a big way.

It probably helps a lot that there is a dedicated group of local players, and we have support from the FLGS to set up our giant Ogre games at the store every couple of months. It's kind of big deal, as it really does take up a lot of table space, which the store could possibly dedicate to more popular games. But so far it's worked out really well.

So, why? Why do I like Ogre when I also like "real" wargames such as France '40 and Tunisia. Well, sometimes I just want to blow stuff up, and Ogre has free bullets. It's not hard to do or understand.

At the time of writing, I have 34 plays of Ogre/GEV. I've played most of the scenarios in the ODE scenario booklet, many of them as attacker and defender. I've also played a number of the third party scenarios (e.g., Operation Newspaper, etc.), scenarios associated with the Kickstarter sponsored counter sheets (e.g., Barbarians at the Gate), and a few of the lastest scenarios resulting from a scenario contest.

I don't have any specific goals with respect to Ogre/GEV. As long as I can find a fun group of folks who like blowing stuff up, I'm in to play pretty much any scenario, as either attacker or defender. At some point, I'll probably start tracking which scenarios I've played and have yet to play, which will provide excellent motivation to play a lot more Ogre.

Fire in the Lake & COIN

While I intend on eventually playing through all the COIN games, I have an intellectual interest in Vietnam, being of an age where worry of the draft was a real thing.

One thing I really enjoy about Fire in the Lake is the event cards, many of which describe events for which I have entire games covering just that event. For example, SEALORDS, or the Tet Offensive.

So far I've logged 8 plays of Fire in the Lake with about half of them solo. I usually play the NVA when playing opposed. Solo plays range from working through the long game, to hours-long, in-depth studies of a few turns using the bots.

StarForce

StarForce is a brilliant little game featuring pseudo-3D map with simultaneous movement. Counter density if very low, typically 6-8 counters per faction which considerably reduces the overhead for simultaneous movement.

Pandemic/Flash Point

I'm lumping these together because they aren't wargames, they play quickly, and they are amenable to solo play. I treat them both as puzzles. Both have a number of expansions to increase difficulty and provide a variety of new experiences. I'd like to play each enough to more or less figure them out. I don't have any idea how many games that will take. At my current learning speed, probably 6-8+ for Pandemic, 8-10 for Flash Point with standard rules, as I've figured out the Basic rules already.

Once I feel comfortable with the game in the box, it will be time to add the expansions in.

Is this too much like work?

Doing anything with an end goal in mind can quickly devolve into work, AKA, "no fun."

I'm keeping the fun quotient high by limiting playing time to when I actually have time to play, without feeling forced to play. In other words, for when I have time to have fun.

With solo games, this is easier with "euro" style titles such as Pandemic and Flash Point. It's not difficult to knock a couple of games or more in a session. With wargames it's a bit harder. I go through phases where I have no interest in soloing wargames, which means I have to find opponents which are interested in the same games I want to play.

Motivational milestones.

I track several motivational milestones:

Nickels, 5 plays of game. I've found if a game is worth playing twice, it's often worth playing 5 times. One website I intermittently visit lists 5 plays as a "nickel."
Dimes, 10 plays of a game. A game worth playing 5 times might be worth playing 10 times. Not all the games I've played 5 times are worth another 10 plays, but some of them are.
H-Index, the number of games played a certain number of times. For example, my current at-this-time-of-writing H-Index of 11 means I've played 11 titles 11 times. Building an H-Index provides motivation to play the same game a number of times, often in rapid succession. It also provides motivation to return to previously played games.
Average plays of owned games. Keeping this number fairly high is a great way to ensure one gets plenty of experience. For example, at the moment, I have 67 listed games with 415 recorded plays for an average of 6.19 plays per game. While the number 231 also accounts for plays of games I don't own (e.g., Settlers of Catan), I usually play games I do own, so the average is a good estimate in any case.
Systematic scenario playthroughs. Many games have a single, main scenario which defines the game and how it's played. This main scenario may be accompanied by one or a small number of related scenarios which start or finish the play at different points of the main scenarios. Finally, a significant number of wargames have many scenarios of various types. Playing through all the scenarios for each game, once per side or faction, is really helpful for developing mastery.
Session reports, writing up each game during play or after playing. When I'm soloing, session reports tend to be very detailed as I work my way through the rules, paying very close attention to the turn sequence. When I'm playing opposed, I typically jot down a few notes during the game play, then include these notes in a brief post recording the game.

For me, each of these motivational milestones helps provides focus. Typically, for each play after the first few, I have a particular problem I wish to investigate, and I may or may not be concerned with winning any particular play.

Where to go from here?

The road ahead is amazing. There are now dozens of excellent games being released each year, far more than anyone could ever play, much less master. A few which I find interesting include the following:

East Front Series. Much of this system, which focuses on 1941-1942 is now out of print. However, I do have a couple, and the game play looks fascinating. The scale is division/regimental level, so each game in the series contains at least 1000 counters and multiple maps. This is a long term project to be sure.
Empire of the Sun. I have a copy of the second edition, but haven't yet set it up. It's not the easiest to game from what I've read, and I'm anticipating wanting to play it several times in rapid succession to get a grip on the rules.
Vietnam 1965-1975. I'm not sure "mastery" is an appropriate goal, having played a couple of short scenarios. I would, however, like to play the campaign game at least one time.
Vintage games of one sort or another. Two I really like are Year of the Rat and Winter War, both dating from the early 1970s. Both play fairly quickly, are not overly complicated, yet each have enough twist to remain interesting for a few games. Winter War in particular has a number of variations for the Finnish player to explore.

Fortunately for my wallet, my main interest is in 20th century conflict, mostly WWII and modern. Other eras, such as Napoleanic or American Civil War, have a vast panoply of games, but I am not at all tempted to purchase any of them.

It's not only about mastery

Mastery is as much about the journey as the end goal. The real benefit of pursuing mastery with a selected number of games is the fun of playing something I already know the rules for. Learning a new game can be hard work, and usually very time consuming. Choosing to play anything on my mastery list means not having to learn a new set of rules. It's much easier to just enjoy the game.

What to play next?

Deciding what to play next is always a tough call when faced with a closet full of games, all of which were purchased with intent to play. Here's one I'm dealing with the decision.

Something New: this means both something new to me and a game which has been published recently, within the last two or three years.
Something Classic: I've acquired a number of games properly considered "classic" which haven't yet been played. The current example would be PanzerGruppe Guderian.
Something Again: mastery requires constant practice, which means playing games many, many times to allow nuance to appear.
Something Vietnam: as I'm on a Vietnam binge. I don't have all the Vietnam games ever published, but I can say that I have a lot of them, and probably more than most people.
Something Obscure: as it's fun to poke around in the dustier corners of game design.
Something Different: break away from the same old publishers and try a game from one of the new kids on the block. Or, conversely, dip into legacy with a classic tried and true.
Something Light: once in a while it's nice to actually finish a game all the way through in one sitting, in an hour or two.
Something Heavy: if possible, it's nice to set up something big and complicated which can be left out for days or weeks or even months, for a leisurely stroll through a very large or long game.

There are surely many more ways to choose, but the above method keeps me busy enough, helps me get both breadth and depth into my play, and provides me with a sense of progress.

The odd man out

When there is an odd man out:

Have a solo game ready to play.
Keep score or advise on a game in progress.
Referee a game in progress.