Cracking a game

Previous:
Next:
Tags

When setting out on a course of mastery, a host of questions come to mind.

What is mastery, anyway? Is it winning every game? Or is mastery something more (or less) than that? Who decides? What are the objective and subjective components of mastery?

Let's suppose any definition of mastery is subjective, and we're free to define what it means for ourselves, with the understanding that self-defined mastery may be regarded as naive delusion by others.

In the context of a game, mastery could be composed of the following level:

  • Rules: completely understanding the rules of a game. Someone with a complete understanding of the rules will be positioned for gaining a tactical advantage.
  • Tactical advantage: applying rules on a turn-by-turn basis for advantage to gain strategic advantage.
  • Strategic advantage: understanding the broad sweep of a game for gaining overall advantage; knowing when to lose battles to gain strategic advantage.
  • Cracking the game: having such a complete understanding of a game to play and win with a variety of strategies as any faction.

This last item, game cracking, is my main interest for this article.

Cracking a game

At the time of writing, I believe I've cracked only one game: Target Leningrad. My belief in this has held up with opposed plays. If I'm the German player, the usual result is a draw when the Russian opponent knows to keep a high defense in a particular city. Otherwise it's a die roll to determine the win somewhere around mid-game. If I'm the Russian player, very unlikely the German player will get better than a draw.

Target Leningrad is one of a four game series. For other games, I believe I've cracked the German player for Objective Kiev, but I haven't yet tested my belief it with opposed plays. I have not yet cracked the Russian player in Objective Kiev.

The other two games in the series are Battle for Moscow and The Arduous Beginning, neither of which I can say I've cracked. I do have a pretty good notion of how to play either side in both games, but have not yet been able to achieve consistent results in solo plays.

What's next?

Hard to say.

I'm working through a progression series for Lord of the Rings card game. There are dozens of scenarios. I'm up to scenario 9, Return to Mirkwood. Some of the scenarios I feel comfortable saying I've cracked, while others I can only say "the god of cards favored me that day."

While I'm at it, I should also mention I've played all twelve of the PanzerBlitz original situations, and cracked at least a few of them. (Situation #3 with with Arvold's modified OOB is actually is really good game.) I plan to do more with PanzerBlitz in the future.

I have my eye on a couple of smaller games as well, Objective 218 and The Agents. Both of these are fairly simple games, yet have subtle twists in game play which did not emerge for me until playing a half dozen times. While both are "difficult" to play solitaire, the difficulty may reside in perspective. When I approach a game as an exercise in mastery, there is no such difficulty as play revolves around mastering the rules, mastering the immediate tactical advantage for both sides, and building a bigger picture of the game play as a thing in itself.

But mastering Objective 218 and The Agents is a step down, or at least a lateral step in effort as compared to cracking Chadwick's Battle for Moscow series. A step up in difficulty might be Winter War, and a step up from that could be Silver Bayonet. PanzerGruppe Guderian might fit right in between those.

An opinion

I have this notion, an opinion, that everyone should find something to master. By everyone, I mean every single person on the planet. It would be better if this mastery were something socially beneficial and economically productive, and I believe entertainment, including games, counts.

In the context of this community, I'm working to develop mastery across a range of games. Some of them are light games, some heavier, some brand new (published within last 2-3 years), some absolutely vintage.

It would be interesting to see what vintage games people consider themselves masters of, and read why they love the particular game so much to be willing to play it any time, along with how many times they have played it, what their win/loss rate is (approximately).

For 2018

As I sit here pondering my upcoming work schedule for Q1 2018, I cannot see that I will have a of time for any mastery effort in games at all. One solution to this conundrum is to list right here, right now, a very small selection of games for which I limit myself to playing:

  1. The Arduous Beginning (11).
  2. Silver Bayonet.
  3. Winter War (11).
  4. Lord of the Rings.
  5. The Agents (8).
  6. Objective 218 (1).

The number of additional plays to put the game on H-index is indicated in parentheses. There is no implicit goal to achieve H-index with these plays, but it's interesting to me to see where the mastery plays started from. Also, all of these games already have more than one play, so it's not getting me through my uplayed games at all, which is sort of a bummer, but I just don't have time to learn new rules.

This is more than enough, and I'm putting some of these on here because I need some flexibility for playing opponents, who will get bored playing the same old games. The above should be enough variety to keep opponents happy through Q1.

Everything else can be put away until Q2.

Previous:
Next:
Tags

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.