RiskyBack wrote:

You're right, nobody but me came right out and said it.  Everybody else just talked about Fatigue of having to do what is required to be successful at a BAO game.  I'm sorry if I misunderstood the need for something to be less taxing as meaning that something should be simpler.

My Bad (not really)

Well no, it was only tom who talked about Fatigue.  He used Fatigue in a very specific tactical sense with regards to units who went later in a turn having an attack and/or defense penalty.  He did not use the word Fatigue to mean 'having to do what is required to be successful at a BAO game'.  You are obviously not an idiot, so I'm assuming you are purposely twisting this in an effort to either be funny or to defend an indefensible position.

Your next tautological statement simply reaffirms your initial mistaken position.

So in case you actually didn't understand what I was saying the first two times, I'll repeat it again in really small words so that you can make an attempt to understand it.

I do not like manipulating turn orders as the main tactical consideration of a simultaneous play system.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I DISLIKE TACTICAL COMPLEXITY IN A SIMULTANEOUS PLAY SYSTEM.  I think that we can create a system WITH AS MUCH IF NOT MORE TACTICAL COMPLEXITY as the older BaO system but WITHOUT THE RELIANCE ON TURN ORDER.

Is that too difficult?  I mean, I used a bunch of words with more than one syllable...

So to quote Spaceballs:  Don't be sorry, just shut up.

P.S. I still love you RB

Oh I get it, and so we no longer have to debate about the fairness of 2 player turn-based games because turn order doesn't EVER matter in the current system.

I get it and I'm out.

Don't let the door hit ya.

CiscoKid wrote:

First questions on execution:

 

What SCM is desired, SVN, CVS, GIT, ... ?

Where will the SCM be hosted?

What will be the process of code review and sign off?

Do we have a use case of a baseline board to model the desired behaviors?

Can there be a http://beta.wargear.net/ for BOA testing and future code tests before going live in prime time?

Will their be a WG simulator option to allow off network coding and models, as not to disturb the primary servers of WG?

 

CiscoKid

Will PM you about this.

IRoll11s wrote: I think that we can create a system WITH AS MUCH IF NOT MORE TACTICAL COMPLEXITY as the older BaO system but WITHOUT THE RELIANCE ON TURN ORDER.

 I gotta say 11s it looks like you are asking the impossible... you want a system where there is not reliance on the turn order but the fact is that tactical turn order manipulation forms the entire basis of BAO and this is where the skill (and for me the fun) lies.

I agree we should reduce the amount of turn padding (i.e. nonsensical moves made to push attacks later into a turn) but managing your turn order to counter an opponent is what makes BAO great - guessing where they will attack first and making sure you counter them for example.

If you do manage to come up with a system where turn order is not important then it won't be BAO.

Actually, all I really want is for people to stop attacking me for being lazy and stupid for wanting this.

Unlucky ;)

IRoll11s wrote: Actually, all I really want is for people to stop attacking me for being lazy and stupid for wanting this.

I'm behind you all the way man. I agree with pretty much every word you and Mig Ole Bitties have written on this subject. In fact, I find that

I do not like manipulating turn orders as the main tactical consideration of a simultaneous play system.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I DISLIKE TACTICAL COMPLEXITY IN A SIMULTANEOUS PLAY SYSTEM.  I think that we can create a system WITH AS MUCH IF NOT MORE TACTICAL COMPLEXITY as the older BaO system but WITHOUT THE RELIANCE ON TURN ORDER.

Is as good a statement of my position on this question as any I could have written myself.

asm wrote:

IRoll11s wrote: Actually, all I really want is for people to stop attacking me for being lazy and stupid for wanting this.

I'm behind you all the way man. I agree with pretty much every word you and Mig Ole Bitties have written on this subject. In fact, I find that

I do not like manipulating turn orders as the main tactical consideration of a simultaneous play system.  THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I DISLIKE TACTICAL COMPLEXITY IN A SIMULTANEOUS PLAY SYSTEM.  I think that we can create a system WITH AS MUCH IF NOT MORE TACTICAL COMPLEXITY as the older BaO system but WITHOUT THE RELIANCE ON TURN ORDER.

Is as good a statement of my position on this question as any I could have written myself.

 

That's all very well... but where are the ideas for an alternative approach?

Um... The check is in the mail?

IRoll11s wrote: Don't let the door hit ya.

Dude, that is so uncalled for!

This is donkey that the discussion is already causing people to part ways!

Don't worry yourself Kid, sometimes Rollie's just cranky and sometimes Risky's a little sensitive. He's probably just mad that Carlos Quentin is cranking out missiles like a Bomb Factory ever since the moment he told me how bad he hates that guy. I can tell you for sure that nobody's losing sleep over that little tiff. Rollie and me have exchanged MUCH harsher words in the past, and the two of us are still tight.

tom wrote:

 I gotta say 11s it looks like you are asking the impossible... you want a system where there is not reliance on the turn order but the fact is that tactical turn order manipulation forms the entire basis of BAO and this is where the skill (and for me the fun) lies.

I agree we should reduce the amount of turn padding (i.e. nonsensical moves made to push attacks later into a turn) but managing your turn order to counter an opponent is what makes BAO great - guessing where they will attack first and making sure you counter them for example.

If you do manage to come up with a system where turn order is not important then it won't be BAO.

DumbQuestionGuy here,

OK, if turn order management is such an essential component of BaO, then is there a way to simplify or automate the more tedious parts of it? 

For example, you're looking at an orders billet with 30 rows (or whatever the max is for that game), each with pull down menus for action, etc., all of which are set to a predefined default ..like "nonsensical". Just fill in the critical orders in the right places.. sign and send to the front.

asm wrote:

Um... The check is in the mail?

Why would it be so hard to figure out a system for resolving orders, you know... simultaneously?

maybe i don't have the imagination, but how would things be more simultaneous and still work? If A attacks B who attacks C who attacks A, can it be resolved simultaneously?
If A kills B's units, what is B attacking C with? Well, maybe they still get to attack and fight, even though they are dead... in onse sense, it seems to be ok... defenders also get to kill at the same time... but if allowed, the defenders of B get to kill A's attackers and C's defenders... that is a lot of killing! But then again, if it is all equal, then isn't it just fine?

Gimli wrote: maybe i don't have the imagination, but how would things be more simultaneous and still work? If A attacks B who attacks C who attacks A, can it be resolved simultaneously?
If A kills B's units, what is B attacking C with? Well, maybe they still get to attack and fight, even though they are dead... in onse sense, it seems to be ok... defenders also get to kill at the same time... but if allowed, the defenders of B get to kill A's attackers and C's defenders... that is a lot of killing! But then again, if it is all equal, then isn't it just fine?

It is call ARRAY stacking the logic

Gimli wrote: maybe i don't have the imagination, but how would things be more simultaneous and still work? If A attacks B who attacks C who attacks A, can it be resolved simultaneously?
If A kills B's units, what is B attacking C with? Well, maybe they still get to attack and fight, even though they are dead... in onse sense, it seems to be ok... defenders also get to kill at the same time... but if allowed, the defenders of B get to kill A's attackers and C's defenders... that is a lot of killing! But then again, if it is all equal, then isn't it just fine?

A has 2 units (attacks with 1), B has 3 units, C has 2 units

A -> B (1 - 6, 6)

B -> C (6,5 - 1, 1)

C -> A (6 - 1, 1)

How would this be resolved and which armies advance where?

Not to mention what would happen if both B and C attack A simultaneously?  Who occupies?

asm wrote:

asm wrote:

Um... The check is in the mail?

Why would it be so hard to figure out a system for resolving orders, you know... simultaneously?

I do believe this has been addressed with a couple of ideas in the other thread ( http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/550p2/Simultaneous_Play ), some that have some merit others that may not work out as well.

I do still think there may be potential for a few different options of BAO.

Such as:

• The BAO that we know, "turn padding" and all
• BAO without "turn padding", throw everything into a magic pot and see who wins (this is what I think the Risk 2 post from Andernut is referring to)
• BAO without dice (WarLight utilizes this, and it is a bit interesting with some cool concepts that go along with it)

All similar in that everyone gives orders all at once and then they are played out at the same time, but different enough to lead to very different boards and outcomes.  Although maybe it is overkill, but I would think of it similar to turn based to where you can have Unlimited Attacks, Limited Attacks, and Restriction on Fortifies (none of which played a role in BAO on WF).

Andernut gave a nice description. Here is the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_II

Summary of my understanding of it: Armies either attack or defend but not both. A attacks B and B attacks A results in "clashing at the border". Remaining armies from the clash "invade". A successful defense against invasion results in leftover invaders going home. If A and B invade C, and C fails to defend, A and B engage in a "spoils battle" (lotso bloodshed!!!)

I'd have more fun playing regular BAO, but this would be more simultaneous and it too would be fun.

the BAO without dice... would that be like diplomacy (board game)? does anyone have experience with that game and War Light?

OK, so I read more of the old thread.
Personally, I like Red Baron's idea for a name the most. No confusion on Sim____.

Andernut's description was good of that system, of Risk2. I could do that. But I started this thread cuz my love for wargear cannot really be complete, when I see so many standard continent grabbing boards getting shipped over, and awesome boards like Bomb Factory, AnA etc are not able to make it over. The board makers are here to import them if they want. They just can't.

Some other comments were also interesting, such as if we don't improve on BAO, then it's an embarassment. I didn't get that sense with other things... sure there were improvements, such as capitals and artillery... but there shouldn't be any sense of competition with ToS... it's basically a crater on life support. Still has some good things, but fear of not looking as good shouldn't really matter. This site is actively supported, innovative and has a great core of people helping out. If BAO came over unaltered, was still called BAO, there is no shame IMO. It will already be better because capitals and artillery can still be included. Can have different types of BAO tourneys. It would already be better!! :)