Re: [Epic] Fun in Wargaming.

From: Kelvin <kx.henderson_at_...>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:12:30 +1000 (EST)

>Actually, nothing kills the fun of a game for me faster than an opponent
>who doesn't play to win. After all, if I beat him what have I accomplished?
>I want my opponent to come at me with everything he's got and I want him
>to expect me to do the same. (Unless he's a newbie just learning. Then
>I'll take it easy, point out things he could do better, etc.)

O.K. I used a poor choice of words. I always play to win, I just rarely
play to win AT ALL COSTS! Winning is great, but it isn't the be all and end
all reason of why I play. I want to have a good time when I play, otherwise
what's the point. I also want to win, but that's because that's what the
game is for. But I rarely play to win at the cost f the fun of the game.

>Cheese is another matter. If you've broken the intent of the game so
>severly that your opponent can't win then the game isn't much fun either.
>Consider the following scenario: I get 12 seven stand IG detachments
>with no upgrades. You get two of the same detatchments. We fight on
>an open field. This isn't going to be much fun for you and it will be
>even less fun for me. If everyone looks at their respective armies with
>this example in mind and asks themselves, "Am I attempting to do the same
>thing; only with a little more 'flavor'" then everyone will have more

Too true. Min-maxing is the bane of all concerned, but I admit I do it too.
In 40K I just can't justify giving away free VP's by upgrading basic IG
units. They work better in my army if they are flat-rate Guardsmen. But I
design my army to have the flavour of an IG by working that into the theme.
They are the throw-away grunts, the others do the specialist work. That
kind of thing.


   "I'm very angry now. I may even be tingling."
                     -The Tick
         email: kx.henderson_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:23 UTC