Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

One question I have for the ToS BAO crowd is:  Is BAO a "fair" engine in two player games?

Yes BAO is fair in 2-player games.  Without really knowing the complete depths of the ME but with my so far basic knowledge, I would say BAO could be potentially more "fair" than the ME.  I think the ability to quickly "clean-up" a win with the ME could also lead to a less fair earlier game.

When I say fair, I mean fair using the sense of word as it's used in probability.  Whenever there's an order assigned to attacks, be they predefined or somewhat arbitrarily defined, there's an element of unfairness.

Assuming all other things equal like our strength and constitution, if we played a game where the two of us take turns hitting each other, the one that goes first has an "unfair" advantage. If we play with guns, that advantage becomes very unfair.

Now as I understand it, attacker is at a disadvantage with the BAO system, so let me change my story..

Again assuming all things equal, if we play a drinking game where two of us take turns drinking shots until one of us falls down, the one that goes second will have an "unfair" advantage.  Change that to a bottle of vodka per round and that advantage becomes very unfair (..unless we're playing with Cram).

As you know, with the M-E there is no order; all players are on equal footing at any given point in the game because every moment/round represents an opportunity for all units to attack simultaneously.  Using the M-Engine we would hit each other at the same time while simultaneously downing shots with the other hand.

Take the situation where at the beginning of a turn a player is left with one country with just a few armies. He's easy pickings and has a number of un-cashed cards which are worth a lot. (I don't know if BAO has cards but I'm assuming it has an elimination bonus or something comparable).  He is surrounded by territories occupied by three or four players, all of which have the same amount of troops, and all are eager to swoop in. Can we assume that they will all put in an attack order for that country at the top of their laundry list? Yes?  So what determines who gets the spoils?  Surely it's whatever the mechanism is that decides who goes first.

I haven't even considered this scenario before but the M-Engine solution is pretty clear and very "fair".  First, all territories would place attack orders to be delivered immediately. During the turn they would quickly take out the defender in a round or two leaving the territory unoccupied. In subsequent rounds they would all battle head to head (using appropriate border mods, etc.) to see who occupies and wins.  Right from the start the entire process is probabilistically "fair".  The better dice will win. No one ever has an advantage that is a result of the prioritizing rules of the engine.

M57 wrote:

When I say fair, I mean fair using the sense of word as it's used in probability.  Whenever there's an order assigned to attacks, be they predefined or somewhat arbitrarily defined, there's an element of unfairness.

Assuming all other things equal like our strength and constitution, if we played a game where the two of us take turns hitting each other, the one that goes first has an "unfair" advantage. If we play with guns, that advantage becomes very unfair.

Now as I understand it, attacker is at a disadvantage with the BAO system, so let me change my story..

Just to keep clearing things up on BAO:

You pistol duel example when transferred over to BAO would be something to the effect of: the first to shoot gets two bullets, but the second to shoot is wearing kevlar. Also, the duelists both have some ability to influence who goes first or second because the turn order is determined by the state of the board, using rules as determined by the author/host.

So "fair" isn't quite as objectively defined as you want it to be. There are pro's and con's to going first or last, to attacking vs defending, to simply doing nothing.

The attacker is at a disadvantage if the author leaves the dice at the default settings and doesn't use border modifiers. Altered dice and border modifiers showed up in many of the best BAO maps.  Choke points, cards, bonuses, directional borders, etc all factor into game play differently than standard games because you can only advance one territory per round. Using BAO rules on any old map can have very mixed results. A good BAO experience is probably more dependent on the map-makers than on normal play.

M57 wrote:

Now as I understand it, attacker is at a disadvantage with the BAO system, so let me change my story..

Cram pointed out that border modifiers giving an attacker edge were common.   However, there are situations where the attacker expects to lose fewer armies than the defender, even with the "BAO standard dice".  

The default was to have an attacking unit kill a defender with 60% probability and a defending unit to kill an attacker with 75% probability.   Simple examples demonstrate that if there are enough attacking armies, the attacker can expect to lose fewer armies than the defender.  If you line up the dead with regular Risk dice, the _expected_ ratio of dead attackers to dead defenders is constant.  With damage dice, this expected ratio depends on the number of units on each side in the battle.

Grrrrr, die Hugh, die!!! (not dice)

Cramchakle wrote:.

So "fair" isn't quite as objectively defined as you want it to be. There are pro's and con's to going first or last, to attacking vs defending, to simply doing nothing.

 

So with the M-Engine, fair is fair..  To make Spy v Spy a fair game, you 'd actually  need to make the starting positions identical.  Take most any map and play it with a stock M-Engine and over time the distribution should spread evenly for players sitting in any seat, and this includes two player games.

The attacker is at a disadvantage if the author leaves the dice at the default settings and doesn't use border modifiers. Altered dice and border modifiers showed up in many of the best BAO maps.  Choke points, cards, bonuses, directional borders, etc all factor into game play differently than standard games because you can only advance one territory per round. Using BAO rules on any old map can have very mixed results. A good BAO experience is probably more dependent on the map-makers than on normal play.

So with BAO, fair is just a simple matter of getting the right balance of choke points, cards, bonuses, and map-makers sense of optimal % dice settings, and possibly altering starting positions to allow for who make the first move.

Actually, joking aside, it occurs to me that (and I have given this absolutely minimal thought), it might be possible to take the simultaneous elements of M-Engine and apply "alternative" resolution strategies such as those used by BAO or KESP.  The M-Engine's "fairness" paridigm is based on the premise that everyone makes these micro-rolls/moves simultaneously, like the hit and the shot and the same time.  In some ways, KESP already accomplishes the simul part, but is not at "micro" time-frame.  My thinking is that because old-school BAO in some shape or form is definitely coming to WG, the "alternative" should be something that contrasts the most with it.

I'm thinking that a lot of designers will prefer to design for BAO boards, but that people might prefer M-Engine simulplay for a lot of traditional and existing boards because they should translate easily.

I'm also thinking that M-Engine play will be the choice of players who don't want to go to a lot of trouble to understand what's going on ..a nice simple merlot, and that perhaps BAO will be the cabernet sauvignon ..where the subtle distinctions that different % dice and complexities of orderstacking need to be understood to really play the game at a competative level.  If we do it right, M-Engine play will be intuitive and so similar to regular play that the learning curve to playing it with a clear understanding of its underlying mechanisms will be small.

The key here is to make sure that these two options offer clearly differentiated choices.  M-Engine could be the stepping-stone to BAO.

What do people think of this concept?

Personally, I think both systems are workable. The nice part about the M-Engine is that it's Risk, only "simultaneously", or as close to it as practically possible. Consequently, most of the tactics are fairly similar, though I think it will solve the two-player board problem. BAO, meanwhile, is an entirely different beast - it resolves battles differently, move dynamics aren't "Risk-like", and turn resolution isn't "Risk-like". Consequently, it leads to entirely different tactics and plays better on entirely different boards. Both engines are fine, both undoubtedly have weaknesses, and, if we played the M-Engine enough, we'd probably find a few annoyances there, too. Such is life.

If we can do BAO here with reasonable documentation, I'd love to see it. If we can do the M-Engine or KESP (both of which look similar), I think that would also be an acceptable option. I do think, based on what I've seen of the M-Engine, that it's not only playable but probably programmable.

No, if anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving. I am NOT drinking any fucking Merlot!

..is that from Sideways? Sounds like it.

is.